1 Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation of the Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness (Compete) Project Final Evaluation Report 8 JUNE 2018 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by QED, LLC Group. Performance Evaluation Report of the USAID WB/G Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project (COMPETE). Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number AID-294-C-17-00005. Performance Evaluation of the Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness (Compete) Project FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number AID-294-C-17-00005 Implemented by The QED Group, LLC. 1820 N. Ft. Myer Drive Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209 +1 703.678.4700 Performance Evaluation Report of the USAID WB/G Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project (COMPETE). Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number AID-294-C-17-00005. Contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... 2 Compete Project - Summary Information........................................................................... 3 1. Evaluation Introduction, Purpose and Questions .................................................... 9 2. Project Background....................................................................................................... 11 3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations ................................................................. 14 4. Evaluation Findings........................................................................................................ 16 4.1 Evaluation Question 1: To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework)........................................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Evaluation Question 2: Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable?......................................................... 39 4.3 Evaluation Question 3: Lessons Learned; how can successful interventions be replicated by future USAID programs?.................................................................................... 43 4.4 Evaluation Question 4: Were there any unintended project outcomes (positive or negative)?............................................................................................................................................... 44 4.5 Evaluation Question 5: How did the project’s implementation approach and management, (including selection criteria and processes), influence the achievement of results?................................................................................................................... 45 5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 47 6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 52 Annexes…………………………..………………………………………………....57 Annex (A)- Evaluation Scope of Work and Design ....................................................... 58 Annex (B)- Evaluation Data Collection Tools................................................................. 83 Annex (C)- Final Sample of Firms/ Farmers Interviewed............................................... 96 Annex (D)- Summary Analysis of Compete Data and Sample Selection Considerations ......................................................................................................... 97 Annex (E)- Mapping of key ongoing donor programs and projects........................... 102 Annex (F)- Field Work Schedule....................................................................................... 105 Annex (G)- Compete Component A and Component B Results Framework performance measurement, PMP Indicators and Measurement................. 112 Annex (H)- Quantitative Data Tables............................................................................. 118 Annex (I)- Statements of Differences ............................................................................ 123 Annex (J)- Signed Disclosure of conflict of interest..................................................... 126 Annex (K)- Evaluation Team Curriculum Vietas............................................................ 130 1 Acknowledgements The Evaluation Team would like to acknowledge the many people who made this evaluation possible, while also seeking people’s understanding that not all can be named. In particular, special thanks is given to Said Abu Hijleh, Compete Chief of Party and Rozana Saleem, Compete’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Communications Manager who were ever helpful in responding promptly to our many questions and requests for all manner of data. More generally, the whole team at Compete were consistently responsive and generous with their time, thoughts and clarifications on the seven-year implementation period of the project. At USAID, the team would like to thank Tayseer Edeas, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist and Amal Tannous, the Compete COR who supported a series of very worthwhile engagements for the Evaluation Team with different aspects of the USAID West Bank and Gaza Mission team. Most of all, we extend our heartfelt appreciation to the hundreds of Palestinians who found time to meet with us, answer countless questions and help shed light on the complexity of their lives, livelihoods and the contribution of the project to their context and more generally to private sector development across West Bank and Gaza. 2 Acronyms ADS Automated Directive System BRC British Retail Consortium Compete Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DFID (UK) Department for International Development DQA Data Quality Assessment EDIP Enterprise Development and Investment Project ETI Ethical Trade Initiative FAO (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization FGD Focus Group Discussion FLAP Firm Level Assistance Program GlobalGAP Global Good Agriculture Practices HLITOA Holy Land Incoming Tour Operators Association ICT Information and Communications Technology ICI Investment Climate Improvement Project IR Intermediate Results KII Key Informant Interview KRA Key Result Areas M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NI National Instrument PA Palestinian Authority PIRS Performance Indicators Reference Sheets PMIS (Compete) Project Management Information System PMDP Palestinian Market Development Program PMP Performance Management Plan PPU Palestine Polytechnic University RF Results Framework SDC Swiss Development Corporation SME Small and Medium Enterprises SoW Scope of Work SWG Sector Working Groups USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WB West Bank WBG West Bank & Gaza WTO World Trade Organization 3 Compete Project - Summary Information Activity/Project Name Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project (Compete) Implementer Development Alternatives International (DAI) Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-294-C-12-00001 Total Estimated Ceiling (TEC) of the Evaluated Project/Activity $62,868,718 Life of Project/Activity Jan 2012 – October 2018 Active Geographic Regions West Bank and Gaza Strip Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO 2: Reduced Constraints to Private Sector-Led Economic Growth IR 2.1: Reduced barriers to trade and improved movement and access for people and goods IR 2.2: Increased competitiveness of targeted sectors IR 2.3: Improved business and investment enabling environment IR 2.4: Improved availability and lower cost of energy, water, and transport resources USAID Office USAID West Bank and Gaza office 4 Executive Summary The Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness (Compete) project has achieved scale and breadth within its programming across the West Bank and Gaza. Having partnered with 1,550 different beneficiary farmers, firms and support organizations working across seven sectors and 41 sub-sectors or value chains, the project has engaged the Palestinian private sector with depth and breadth, and interviewees for this evaluation recognize Compete as a project willing to invest in evidence based initiatives to promote competitiveness, especially of those with export orientation or aspirations. Across the headline key result areas of sales, employment and investment, Compete reports $287,448,427 in sales, 5,684 new full or part time jobs, and more than $60 million of private investment (in co-contributions) by beneficiary firms to project performance. At the same time, the evaluation found project performance is (predictably) uneven both across sectors, and even within sectors. Evaluation purpose The purpose of this external performance evaluation of is to assist USAID/West Bank Gaza (USAID/WBG) in assessing project approach and performance of against its main objectives in terms of results and sustainability. The evaluation will provide lessons learned and recommendations for future activities in relation to private sector development under consideration by the USAID Economic Growth and Infrastructure team. Project background Compete was conceived in 2011 at a time of genuine optimism in the Middle East, with USAID assessing that ‘the Palestinian economy stood on the threshold of an enormous opportunity for integration into world markets’. This led to conceptualisation of a competitiveness project, aimed at accelerating the process of linking Palestinian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to international markets in order to take advantage of emerging global market opportunities. Within the award, four sectors were identified for inclusion - agribusiness, tourism, information and communications technology (ICT) and stone and marble. It was further stipulated that the project be built around two interrelated components: • Component A: Assistance to Palestinian enterprises to become competitive in global markets • Component B: Assistance in the development of Palestinian business support organizations Evaluation methodology and limitations A central challenge of the evaluation was the sheer scope of Compete, in terms of the number of beneficiaries and different sectors in West Bank and Gaza, over a seven-year period. Informed by an initial review of project documentation, the Evaluation Team (ET) undertook purposive sampling to ensure representation of different project sectors and sub￾sectors, project strategies, project periods and geographical distribution. While interviewees comprised 4 percent of the total number of firms assisted by the project, these accounted for 30 percent of the investments made by the project in firm-level-assistance over the same period. The ET used a mixed methods approach, including qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Qualitative data were collected through 83 key informant meetings, of which 67 were with project beneficiaries, 3 with government representatives, 7 with other donors and their implementing partners, and 3 with USAID. Additionally, both formal and informal meetings were held with Compete leadership and staff, and briefings undertaken with USAID at entry, mid-point and exit. The main limitation of the evaluation, given direction from USAID to measure effectiveness against the project’s key result areas (KRAs), related to a disconnect between the data being 5 gathered by the project and measurement of several of the KRAs described in the project results framework. A related limitation was the absence of a dynamic baseline and shifts in approach performance measurement over the life of the project. In response, the ET worked to investigate through the evaluation sample the largely qualitative result areas for which Compete was not collecting any specific, relevant data. In relation to quantitative data, the results outlined are assessed by the ET as representing the best available data. Major findings and conclusions Evaluation Question 1: To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework)? As evidenced by the number and breadth of partnerships entered into, the project cost￾sharing model has proven popular in both West Bank and Gaza. Firms speak of the opportunity of Compete contribution incentivizing them to invest in growing their business and tapping emerging market opportunities, since it reduced the risk associated with piloting innovation or chasing new markets. Compete support to firms to better understand and engage export markets was also cited by many as a project strength. While project actions often demonstrate astute value chain understanding, it is equally the case that sector analysis, strategy and intended results are rarely documented in any robust form. Compete management are clear that they did not feel the need to reinvent the wheel, given how many market assessments had previously been undertaken of targeted value chains. However, limitations in documented analysis underpinning Compete interventions and the lack of clearly articulated vision statements and theories of change for sub￾sector/value chain development appears in some cases to have affected strategic decision￾making and the degree to which sub-sectors have been holistically supported. A common theme cutting across successful activities is that the project’s best results are achieved when either a market is already secured, where a clearly identified market opportunity exists, or where opportunity exists to activate a niche within a market. A related approach, especially in the agriculture sector, has been to support aggregation of small producer product, helping aggregators chase larger contracts which in turn connects them and allows engagement of more established value chain actors. Within this approach, the project has also worked to invest in promoting quality and quality assurance as a strategy for strengthening relationships with buyers, strengthening the relationship between producer and aggregator, as well as the ability of a sector to give confidence to buyers. In some instances, targeted support to address strategic sub-sector bottlenecks – especially those that were high cost – was effective in benefitting the wider value chain. Sorting machines, cool rooms and washing facilities have all contributed within agriculture to quality improvements allowing value adding and greater responsiveness to buyer demands, while also facilitating new opportunities for producers. Baby cucumber and potatoes stand out within agriculture as notable successes, based in the confidence of different value chain actors that a secure market existed for their product. Within the ICT sector, Compete provided staffing support (internships) in the earlier phase of the project to assist firms to target specific, known opportunities such as the development of health information management systems or positioning of Palestinian ICT businesses as an efficient back office to larger operations in Europe or North America. Another common theme of success stories relates to firms that enjoy freedom of movement and confidence that targeted markets can be accessed as required. This is most notable in Gaza where those firms who have capacity to reliably move produce through Karem Shalom 6 are almost universally growing at a significant rate. Conversely, project beneficiaries in Gaza speak of ‘lost opportunities’ based on their lack of mobility and inability to meet clients. The common theme with firms that appear to have not benefited so greatly from Compete support is that assistance occurred in a context where clarity around market need and approach to achieving market traction was less apparent. Common to such contexts is the project not being active at multiple points on the value chain, or there being limited shared understanding across the value chain of how different project interventions relate to each other. For example, while the project invested broadly across different sub-sectors of the tourism sector, these interventions seem to have occurred in relative isolation of each other, with few respondents met during the evaluation being aware of Compete programming in other areas of tourism. Component B of Compete was to support business associations and support organizations. The ET observes that the priority placed on component B diminished over the course of the project, in favor of more direct project-firm relationships consistent with the Firm Level Assistance Program (FLAP) introduced at the project mid-point. While the FLAP brought a more structured and better documented approach to decision-making and facilitated a sharp rise in the number of smaller firms participating, it also reduced opportunities within the project for support organizations and especially business associations to strengthen their enabling capacity to the sector. An important impact of the FLAP has been to stimulate employment opportunities, with 3,198 of the total number of 5,684 jobs generated by Compete coming in Year 6 through FLAP supported firms. Women and youth have benefited from the project inspired employment occupying 1,231 and 2,801 of the 5,694 jobs respectively. While a gender strategy was developed by the project, its proposed approach was not fully implemented with no documented analysis of the gender dynamics within the targeted value￾chains/sub-sectors, making it difficult for gender considerations to be incorporated within planning given the complex and varied challenges to mainstreaming gender and addressing systemic constraints to women’s inclusion that exist within these value chains. Evaluation Question 2: Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable? Across all sectors, the potential of sustainability of project investment is intimately linked to the degree that market traction has been achieved by participating firms within that sector. Within the agriculture sector, the degree to which the required linkages within a value chain are in place and functioning is also an important aspect of sustainability. Central to such linkages is strategic identification of bottlenecks that constrain multiple value chain actors, through key interventions. Support that reduces reliance on importation of inputs is reported by participants as another important sustainability measure, since it contributes to enhanced confidence levels within production systems. Within agriculture, those firms supported by Compete to produce inputs previously needing to be purchased externally (seeds, seedlings, fish fingerlings) believe they are able to produce at a lower cost per unit than imported inputs, and see this as paving the road to a sustainable future for their enterprise and sector. Evaluation Question 3: How can successful interventions be replicated by future USAID programs? There are a range of key factors common to Compete success stories which offer insight as to how the best aspects of Compete can be replicated. Strong sector understanding appears 7 to be critical in terms of the project being able to identify highly strategic and complementary entry and intervention points that build confidence and resilience within a sector. This analysis contributes to sophisticated understanding of market potential and opportunities, which also is key to guiding project decision-making. This foundational work is important since Compete demonstrates that when clear and accessible market opportunity exists, the private sector appears to be generally capable of managing itself forward in that market. Replication is therefore best served by a foundation that ensures sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the potential of sectors under consideration, since this contributes to the project being well positioned to identify bottlenecks and strategic interventions to overcome them. It also assists identification of synergies and mutual benefit where the ‘investment whole’ can be greater than the sum of its parts. Such an approach also provides an efficiency dividend, since it can avoid unnecessary interventions. Evaluation Question 4: Were there any unintended project outcomes? Unintended outcomes of the project mostly relate to limitations in market system understanding, and the subsequent impact of project interventions on the overall market system. For example, within the potato sub-sector in West Bank, the project concentrated project resources within relatively few hands, which has led to concerns being expressed more broadly in the sector in relation to distribution of water resources and marketing approaches that disadvantage smaller producers. It is likely that a more robust market system analysis would have alerted the project to potential negative impacts of different project interventions. Evaluation Question 5: How did the project’s implementation approach and management, (including selection criteria and processes), influence the achievement of results? Compete’s approach and management across its different sectors is understandably diverse and varied, as the project works to find the best fit for the unique challenges and opportunities inherent to different levels within each sub-sector. Not surprisingly, feedback on Compete management is mixed and often contradictory. While many interviewed spoke of smooth processes and responsiveness, others spoke of delays and a lack of communication. Generally speaking, more positive feedback came from those in the agriculture sector who appreciated the project willingness to address bottlenecks, co-finance procurement of assets and valued the availability of Compete staff to support them as required in value chain strengthening. More negative feedback was apparent within the ICT and Tourism sectors, with the most common complaint being a lack of clarity around the project strategy and poor communication related to the project’s shift in direction in these sectors. While Compete management of sub-sectors such as baby cucumber, (Gaza) potatoes and fisheries reflect intimate understanding of these value chains, the ET believes that better documentation of sector understanding, strategy and objectives would have assisted project management in terms of all stakeholders having clarity around what it was that Compete would do in their sector. The ET also believes that an opportunity was missed with the way M&E was conducted over the life of the project, by not being sufficiently focused on ‘monitoring for learning’, as opposed to monitoring to aid reporting. 8 Recommendations The headline recommendation of the evaluation is that USAID commit to further support and progress competitiveness of the Palestinian economy through interventions in both West Bank and Gaza. Results achieved through Compete demonstrate that strategic and considered support to sectors and businesses can be catalytic in strengthening export readiness, building investor confidence and addressing bottlenecks, resulting in a strengthened Palestinian economy and growth in employment opportunities. While a total of 17 recommendations are laid out in the following report, these can be summarized as follows: • Any future competitiveness program should endeavor to unlock growth potential of sub￾sectors by addressing systemic constraints to competitiveness using a systems approach to the extent possible. A key focus of such approach should be selecting sub-sectors and value chains within them that have a clear growth and value-adding potential, and that can deliver improved returns and incomes for small and micro enterprises. Interventions in these sub-sectors and value chains should then be designed to build capacities, change behaviors of actors in the market systems to deliver results at scale. • Any future project should maintain capacity to support strengthening of support organizations. While this recommendation carries relevance across all sectors, particular focus should be placed on those capable of facilitating trade, identifying market opportunities and addressing information asymmetries related to them, and supporting aggregation and value adding within the agriculture sector as a means of supporting the many small Palestinian farmers who historically have been ‘price-takers’. • M&E systems should be appropriately resourced and strengthened placing greater focus on tracking assessing life-of-program results, knowledge management and lessons learned, recognizing the opportunities and efficiencies inherent in clearly understanding what has and hasn’t worked, and why. • Improve project communications in general, and with government in particular. Project participation in coordination mechanisms should also be more actively undertaken as a means of progressing learning in relation to competitiveness, while also facilitating opportunities to identify potential programming synergies. • A gender advisor should be appointed to specifically manage women-led programming, including research and provision of support to sector leads to assist them in ensuring gendered approaches and gender sensitivity in their own value chain approaches. The Gender Advisor would also provide support to ensuring M&E approaches adequately address gender issues and learning. • Structural considerations remain paramount making it vital that the project work hand in glove with USAID to pursue strategic advocacy aimed at overcoming structural constraints to the competitiveness of the Palestinian economy. 9 1. Evaluation Introduction, Purpose and Questions 1.1 Introduction and purpose The USAID-funded Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness project (from here on referred to as Compete) commenced implementation in 2012. Originally conceived as a five-year project, it has twice received one-year extensions and will now conclude October 31, 2018. Central to decisions to extend the project was its deferred commencement in Gaza, where it only came online in 2015 (related to political tensions emerging from hostilities in both 2012 and 2014). Building off earlier work of USAID West Bank and Gaza’s Private Enterprise Office, the Project Award document articulated the importance of a prosperous and competitive private sector, economically integrated within the global economy, to the establishment of a sovereign, independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state.1 The purpose of the project, as described in the Award document, was to strengthen the competitiveness and export potential of four sectors - Agriculture and Agribusiness, Stone and Marble, Tourism and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) - to the future prosperity of the Palestinian economy. This was to occur through provision of technical assistance and grants within these sectors and to business service organizations that support these sectors with the aim of improving sales, income, and employment, in order to strengthen the overall Palestinian economy. The purpose of this performance evaluation is to assist USAID/West Bank Gaza (USAID/WBG) in assessing the approach and performance of Compete against its main objectives in terms of results and sustainability. The evaluation will provide lessons learned and recommendations for future activities that the USAID Economic Growth and Infrastructure team is considering in relation to private sector development in the West Bank and Gaza. The primary audience for the evaluation will be the USAID/WBG office, specifically the Economic Growth and Infrastructure office as they evaluate potential follow-on proposals and future activities in this sector. Secondary audiences would be other stakeholders interested in private sector development across West Bank and Gaza, as well as those with interest in the specific sectors focused upon by Compete. Detail of the evaluation structure and approach was outlined in a Scope of Work (SoW) prepared by the evaluation team (ET) in the startup evaluation phase, based on extensive reading of project documentation. The SoW detailed a series of evaluation questions and sub-questions that aimed to ensure a rich blend of qualitative and quantitative evidence from which conclusions could be reached with regards to the degree to which project interventions and processes have been effective in achieving the results they set out to achieve. The agreed methodology was to put in place a logical sequence of evaluative approaches capable of establishing whether or not a clear and plausible line of sight exists between the various types of support provided by the project to firms, support organizations and targeted sectors, towards achievement of the project’s lead outcomes - increased exports and investment, enhanced innovation and services, and an expanding job market in the West Bank and Gaza. 1.2 Evaluation questions The SoW was presented to USAID/WBG on 28th March 2018. It is attached as Annex A. The evaluation questions and sub-questions were agreed as follows: 1 Award Document Contract No. AID-294-C-12-00001, Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project; p. 2 10 1) EFFECTIVENESS: To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework)? Sub-questions 1.1 To what extent (and why) have levels of investment and revenues of participating SMEs increased? Are trends apparent in different sectors and sub-sectors supported by the project? 1.2 Has the number of international markets accessed by Palestinian firms expanded? Has the quality and reliability of relationships with external buyers improved? 1.3 To what degree do firms feel supported by Business Associations and service providers? 1.4 Do supported firms enjoy increased market share for their products and services in West Bank and Gaza? 1.5 Has the project achieved demonstrable improvement in the quality of products and services produced by supported SMEs? Has this resulted in firms achieving greater value from their production? 1.6 Has the project generated increased employment opportunities for Palestinians? Do SMEs supported by the project employ additional people? 1.7 How has the project approached skills transfer and development? Are staff within participating firms applying enhanced skills? 1.8 Has the contribution made by other agencies/ mechanisms to participating firms been sufficiently factored into results reporting? 1.9 To what extent has the approach been proactive in promoting an enhanced role for women and youth? 2) SUSTAINABILITY: Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable? Sub-questions 2.1 Are there common characteristics to successful project interventions? Do these differ across sectors or by type/size of grant?? 2.2 Which of these characteristics are sustainable without ongoing project support? What characteristics of success (if any) are reliant on external support? 3) REPLICABILITY: How can successful interventions (identified as part of Question 1) be replicated by future USAID programs? Sub-questions 3.1 Which have been the most successful intervention types, and why? Do these vary by sector? Do these vary when considered by level of financial assistance? 3.2. Are there local mechanisms or is there local capacity capable of replicating better business support approaches? 4) UNINTENDED OUTCOMES: Were there any unintended project outcomes (positive or negative)? 5) MANAGEMENT APPROACH: How did the project’s implementation approach and management, (including selection criteria and processes), influence the achievement of results? 11 2. Project Background 2.1 Project conception Compete was conceived in 2011 at a time of genuine optimism in the Middle East, with USAID (and most other observers) assessing that ‘the Palestinian economy stood on the threshold of an enormous opportunity for integration into world markets’. This assessment was based on cessation of the second Palestinian Intifada, the spur to the Palestinian economy provided by the advent of the Fayyad government, positive momentum in terms of Israel lifting some barriers to movement and access, and important efforts being made at the time by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to undertake the reforms necessary to achieve observer status in the World Trade Organization (WTO) which offered the potential of an improved business environment where equity and debt financing was more available. 2 While this pointed to a range of opportunities to support the Palestinian economy, USAID was specifically interested to identify ways of supporting the many small and medium enterprises (SME) that employed the overwhelming majority of Palestinians. This focus was seen as urgently needed given SMEs had historically focused primarily on the domestic market, and were therefore poorly placed to engage international markets and benefit from the various opportunities emerging from the improved economic landscape described above. The new project would follow on from and be informed by the USAID Enterprise Development and Investment Promotion project (EDIP), which was implemented between 2008-11. Based on an overall assessment of past programming and the current political and economic context, a competitiveness project was conceptualized and released to market, aimed at accelerating the process of linking Palestinian SMEs to international markets in order to take advantage of emerging global market opportunities. This was to occur through the project providing ‘a combination of market information, innovative solutions to unique constraints on Palestinian businesses, technical assistance, and training to Palestinian SMEs and business associations. The primary objective was to address sectorial gaps that will enable Palestinian enterprises to identify and exploit significant economic opportunities, primarily in the international market, through identification of Palestinian firms with good potential for growth that can expand the country’s export revenues and increase employment, particularly of young people.’ 3 The opportunity was proposed as a three-year project with an option to extend for two additional years, and proposed that the four specific sectors engaged through EDIP (agribusiness, stone and marble, tourism, and ICT) continue to be focused upon, since USAID assessed these as still being the most promising sectors for Palestinian engagement of the global economy. At this point, it was also expected that the project would be immediately operational in both West Bank and Gaza, while also recognizing the need for different approaches in each given the expectation that Gaza would remain significantly isolated from world markets for the foreseeable future. 2.2 Technical proposal and start-up The Award document asked applicants to build their concept around two interrelated components: • Component A: Assistance to Palestinian enterprises to become competitive in global markets • Component B: Assistance in the development of Palestinian business support organizations In mid-2011, the successful applicant – Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) – outlined a technical proposal that detailed anticipated results detailed under each component. The technical proposal outlined Component A results specific to each of the four identified sectors, with these results emerging from a project facilitated sector planning process built around the establishment of ‘Sector Working Groups’ (SWGs). As described, DAI would ‘draw on principal counterparts in each sector to 2 Contract No. AID-294-C-12-00001, Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project, Part One; p.8 3 Contract No. AID-294-C-12-00001, Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project, Part One; p.9 12 organize SWGs that would not only manage sector planning workshops, but also champion results and assure corrective action as warranted. As SWGs help sectors become skilled at collaborating on the design and implementation of needed activities, DAI would help the SWGs to involve overlooked or hard to reach sector participants (such as cooperatives, youth and women) in commissioned research, deliberations and decisions.’ 4 Component B results focused on enhancing the organizational development and role of business associations, with a focus on ensuring their capacity to respond to demand driven services and financial self￾sufficiency. The project would support business association development through building the capacity of business service providers to respond to local industry needs and end market demand. Underpinning the overall approach was a commitment to rigorous performance, monitoring and evaluation processes capable of capturing performance data, tracking progress in relation to outputs, outcomes and results, and continuous learning able to inform decision making of both project management and USAID in relation to future directions. 2.3 Project structure The goal of Compete is to strengthen the competitiveness and export potential of key sectors essential to the future prosperity of the Palestinian economy. This is achieved through efforts aimed at facilitating rapid expansion in sectors of the Palestinian economy that show the most potential for employment and export growth. In West Bank, the project was specifically instructed by USAID to focus on the agribusiness, tourism, ICT, and the stone and marble sectors. In Gaza, the project undertook its own rapid assessment of needs and opportunities, identifying agriculture, ICT, fisheries, textile garments, tourism and furniture as target sectors (though furniture was soon withdrawn from due to a tightening of dual use restrictions on products entering Gaza, restricting producer access of producers to the wood required for furniture production). Project approaches include: • provision of grants and technical assistance to companies; • efforts to maximize the value of products with a view to partnering with firms towards new products and approaches that better respond to market opportunities; • connect smaller businesses with larger producers and exporters that have direct and more efficient access to markets; • empower SMEs to better perceive and respond to opportunities as they arise through training and increasing the flow of information, products, and technology throughout target sectors. Across work plans, the project highlights the formation of partnerships and leveraging of governmental, donor and private sector commitment and cooperation as critical to enhancing competitiveness among targeted WBG sectors. While the USAID/Compete model does not include a steering committee mechanism upon which government representatives would sit, the project identified contact points within each ministry of relevance, including the Ministry of Economy. These contact points are used as liaison points, and as required, facilitate access to meetings with more senior government representatives. To provide structure and support performance monitoring, the project developed a results framework that conveys the development hypothesis implicit in the program’s goal and objectives, as well as the cause￾effect relationships among key results areas, program intermediate results, and program objectives. The results framework is used to guide planning and communications, and as a foundation for work planning and performance monitoring. (see section 5.1 for a description of the Results Frameworks for both West Bank and Gaza). In total, Compete works across 6 sectors and 41 sub-sectors, providing support to a total of 1,550 beneficiary farmers, firms and support organizations. This support ranges in scale from $405 to $2.24 4 DAI Technical Proposal; WBG: Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness project; May 16, 2011; p. 10 13 million, with nearly 90% of the value of support provided concentrated in the agriculture (43%), Tourism (33%) and ICT (13%) sub-sectors. In 2013, Compete began to more deliberately incorporate youth and gender components into the project. With regard to gender, the project formalized its approach through development of a gender strategy in late 2013, which was incorporated in the 2014 work plan and included the addition of gender specific indicators. In 2015, an external mid-term review was undertaken. Among the recommendations was that the project ‘develop more activities that do not focus on the same, often larger and more established firms’, since this restricted opportunities for the smaller firms that were described in the Award as needing support to become export ready.5 Coinciding with this observation, Compete introduced the Firm Level Assistance Program (FLAP) which brought a more structured approach to decision-making around grants, while also facilitating a significant increase in the number of smaller firms becoming involved in the project. 2.4 Other USAID programming at conception It is important to note another project under implementation by USAID at the time of conception of the competitiveness project in 2011. The Investment Climate Improvement Project (ICI) worked with the Ministry of National Economy, Ministry of Finance and line ministries, as well as with governorate and municipal officials and private-sector associations to analyze reforms, identify obstacles to reform, and develop a multi-year strategy to improve the enabling environment for business, investment, and trade. Within the Competitiveness Award document was clear direction that the ICI project was responsible for efforts aimed at improving the enabling environment for Palestinian business, and that any work done by the proposed competitiveness project on the enabling environment vis-à vis Palestinian enterprises should be coordinated with that project. The significance of this context lies in the fact that much of the optimism felt in 2011 in relation to continued positive momentum towards an easing of tensions between the Israeli and Palestinian governments proved to be premature, meaning that significant ‘enabling work’ is still urgently needing to be done if the Palestinian economy is to come even close to working on a level playing field.6 With ICI finishing in 2014, and Compete not structured in such a way that it can work to facilitate a more enabling environment for competitiveness in a structured and deliberate way, many profoundly significant structural obstacles remain in terms of efforts to progress competitiveness of the Palestinian economy. How the unrealized political settlement manifests itself in the form of competitiveness constraints that permeate throughout the Palestinian economy is described in USAID WBG’s Inclusive Growth Diagnostic, published in May 2017. In finance, Palestinian banks are constrained by limitations on cash transfers from WBG to correspondent banks in Israel, and large amount of vault cash affect interest rates and lending practices. Social returns are low because Palestinians do not have full control of territory in the West Bank and cannot access many of the natural resources, namely water and offshore Gaza Marine gas fields, which they would otherwise use. Workers must pass through onerous checkpoints to reach better-paying jobs, and a skilled worker in Gaza who would like to work for a firm in the West Bank cannot do so without an Israeli permit. Palestinian firms must import and export goods through Israeli customs and security procedures. Shipments must undergo back-to-back transfer from Palestinian trucks to Israeli trucks to move across borders and crossing points.7 These constraints pose a significant implementation challenge for Compete, demanding the need to adapt and respond to the many threats and opportunities that arose during implementation. 5 Mid Term Evaluation of the Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness (Compete) project; Optimal Solutions Group; March, 2015; p.7 6 See West Bank and Gaza Inclusive Growth Diagnostic published by USAID in May 2017. 7 USAID West Bank and Gaza Inclusive Growth Diagnostic; May 2017; p.6 14 3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations 3.1 Overview A central challenge of the evaluation was the sheer scope of Compete, in terms of it having worked with 1,550 beneficiaries across seven different sectors over a seven-year period. Informed by an extensive literature review, the ET worked to identify an approach and sample suitable to ensuring sufficient breadth and flexibility to effectively gather data from multiple sources within a relatively short field work period. It was understood from the first instance that both quantitative and qualitative analysis were needed. Qualitative data methods included document review and key informant interviews (KIIs) with stakeholders from different stakeholder groups across the project landscape. Standardized interview guides were used for firm and all other stakeholder interviews, which yielded both quantitative and qualitative results. The interview guides are included in Annex B. Quantitative data were obtained through a review and synthesis of existing program reports and M&E data contained within the project’s extensive data base and USAID/West Bank and Gaza's primary system for capturing and managing project related information (GeoMIS) retrieved on February 25, 2018. Data tables of all graphics included in this report are found in Annex H. A mixed methods approach allowed flexibility for the ET to identify and understand different points of view within the stakeholder landscape in relation to Compete performance and achievements. The different stakeholders also helped assess and determine the degree to which targeted sectors had been positively progressed by Compete, and also how the project had worked at firm level to build capacity, achieve impact, and support sustainable outcomes for participating firms. Throughout the evaluation, the ET followed the principle of triangulation for both qualitative and quantitative analysis, seeking to confirm conclusions through supporting evidence from multiple sources. These sources include the quantitative data held by the project at both macro and firm levels. Project Performance Management Plan (PMP) data was analyzed and efforts made to selectively verify such data with firms. Additional data was requested from and provided by firms on key questions considered in this Evaluation. 3.2 Sampling The process of selecting firms for interviews, while not quantitatively rigorous, followed the ideas of stratified random sampling. Firms were chosen to be representative of different project sectors and sub￾sectors, project strategies, and geographical distribution across the country, with some firms chosen that have had extensive interaction with the project and some chosen more on the periphery of project activities. Interviewed firms and farmers comprised 4 percent of the total number of firms assisted by the Project over its seven-year lifetime, but accounted for 30 percent of the investments made by the Project in firm-level￾assistance over the same period. The final sample of firms is attached at Annex C, and is based is based on the analysis summarized in Annex D, which details summary analysis undertaken by the ET of Compete data. The final evaluation sample allowed insight to all sectors and included participation of women and youth as selection criteria to ensure understanding of the levels of ‘genuine’ participation and challenges inherent within these important cohorts. Given the Mid-Term Review that examined performance during the first three years of project implementation, the sampling was weighted (60%) towards the firms that received support from the fourth year of implementation onwards. 3.3 Data sources and methods The evaluation was conducted by an independent team of three consultants, with quality assurance support provided by The QED Group in both Ramallah and Washington, DC. Following a briefing mission to USAID in Tel Aviv and DAI in Ramallah, fieldwork in the West Bank and Gaza took place 1–26 April 2017. During the course of five weeks in country, the ET undertook 86 interviews and briefings involving project beneficiaries, private sector associations, service providers, Compete staff, as well as representatives of USAID, the Palestinian Authority, donors, and international organizations working in the areas of 15 competitiveness promotion, agribusiness development, and trade facilitation. Annex F features the ET’s field schedule and lists all entities consulted during the evaluation. Logical sequencing was employed with the ET first meeting with USAID to understand the Mission’s perspective on the project and evaluation, followed by meetings with Compete staff to better understand and clarify understanding of the details of project activities and staff insights regarding the proposed sample. The ET then worked to a geographically logical sequence of beneficiary interviews, meeting with various Palestinian firms and farmers. Meetings were also schedule with other key donors and agencies, other projects of relevance and government agencies. The ET asked the Compete Team to generate different data analyses for review. Structured interviewing of Compete’s different parts also occurred, including the CoP, sector leads, Grants Manager, and M&E Officer (in both the West Bank and Gaza offices). In these meetings, the Team sought to understand the details of project activities, the perspectives of project staff, the decision-making processes at various levels, monitoring and reporting processes, and the allocation of staff resources to tasks. The purpose of meeting with non-participating stakeholders, such as private sector interested donor organizations, other projects of relevance, central government authorities, and trade organizations was to understand how the project cooperates, coordinates, and builds synergies across the broader private sector promotion landscape. Such interviews also allowed the ET to hear external perspectives on what Compete does well and where improvements could be made. In interviews with beneficiary firms and farmers, the ET sought to confirm what project assistance had been received, what the impact of that assisatnce had been (including verification of data reported in the PMP), firm perspectives on project implementation, and more general information about the firms context and direction. Table 1: Summary of interviews conducted in West Bank and Gaza Sector/ Entity # of Interviews Completed Total # of People Interviewed Total WB Gaza WB Gaza Agriculture 26 8 34 31 14 45 ICT 6 3 9 9 3 12 Marble and Stone 3 None 3 4 None 4 Tourism 14 1 15 23 4 27 Fishing None 2 2 None 2 2 Garment None 2 2 None 4 4 Other Support Organizations 1 1 2 2 1 3 Government Counterparts 3 (MoTA, MoA, MoNE) None 3 6 None 6 Other Donors & their IPs 6 1 7 10 2 13 Compete Team 2 1 3 5 4 9 USAID 2 1 (El Wafa) 3 11 3 14 USAID Briefings 3 None 3 27 None 27 Total 66 20 86 128 37 166 3.4 Limitations The primary limitation of the evaluation was the limited time available to it. Given Compete has 1,550 different beneficiaries working across seven sectors in West Bank and Gaza, it was not possible for every aspect of the project to be investigated in exhaustive detail. This was overcome best as possible by the purposive sampling described above. 16 Limited human resources also compromised the degree that the project’s gender and youth focused programming could be assessed in detail. While efforts were made to consider each, it became apparent during the field work that assessment of the project’s gender performance would have benefitted from more detailed investigation and the availability of specific gender expertise. Another challenge for the evaluation was that it overlapped release by USAID of the call for proposals for the proposed ‘competitiveness’ successor phase. This led to a directive from USAID that the ET ‘not share verbally or in writing any portion of the Compete evaluation work product, including observations, conclusions, and collected data, with anyone outside USAID/WBG.’ This denied the ET the standard opportunity of a full debrief and validation workshop with Compete, which would have provided an opportunity for valuable initial feedback on draft findings, fact-checking and exploring feasibility of recommendations. Another challenge has been significant variability identified across the quantitative data reviewed by the evaluation team. This has made it less possible than anticipated to use the project baseline and monitoring data to confidently assemble different results and measurements of project effectiveness While every effort has been made to resolve such discrepancies, this has not always been possible. When data variability has been identified, the ET has worked to identify what it regards to be the ‘better’ data source through cross￾referencing and triangulation of different sources. All Tables detailed in the report were generated by the ET, drawing on what they assessed to be the best available data. 4. Evaluation Findings Predictably, given 1,550 distinct different partners, project performance is mixed, with it not uncommon for different programming examples to vary considerably in approach, management and outcomes. The report that follows does its best to contextualize and explain the reasons underpinning different results. Overarching Findings on Project Approach The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of Compete’s structure and approach, while also describing shifts in approach across its seven-year implementation period. The need for this section relates primarily to the project not having a clearly documented theory of change to guide implementation, and concern within the ET that this has been a contributing factor to better practice being inconsistently applied. While flexibility and adaptability were both critically important given the overall context, it is felt that clear description within a ToC of fundamental principles and core approaches would have helped address areas of weakness described within this evaluation. The two areas described in this section focus on: • processes for sub-sector selection and strategy development and, • monitoring and evaluation approaches, given their importance to results measurement in general, and the first evaluation question in particular, which asks for effectiveness to be measured against the described project key result areas. Approach to identifying and addressing competitiveness constraints DAI’s original technical proposal submitted to USAID outlined a heavily sector driven approach, including establishment of SWGs. While the proposed approach was not delivered as originally described in the technical proposal, the project has initiated different approaches to identifying sector constraints, needs and opportunities. During the first three years of operation, Compete utilized a model of sector analysis referred to as the Competitiveness Impacts of Business Environment Reforms (CIBER) methodology. According to the CIBER documents, the CIBER combines intensive stakeholder-driven advocacy with rigorous economic analysis to identify opportunities for advancing key reforms in the business environment for a particular value chain, 17 including analysis of laws and regulations, and administrative practices from a sector development and growth perspective. The CIBER methodology placed strong focus on identifying sector-wide interventions necessary to upgrade the individual and collective performance of enterprises in targeted sub-sectors by maximizing local value addition and helping to calibrate needed changes throughout key value chains to accelerate sectorial growth. While the outputs of the CIBER approach were of a high standard, only three subsectors/value chains were CIBER assessed: fresh herbs and Madjool dates; tourism sector, with a focus on site development and alternative tourism; and stone and marble sector, with a focus on slurry management and value addition. None of these were ever updated, as is generally proposed within CIBER methodology. The existence and depth of CIBERs in just a few select sub-sectors highlights the significantly less robust documentation underpinning other sector and sub-sector interventions. The decision to abandon the CIBER approach related to their very high cost and also a perspective within Compete that there is no point reinventing the wheel in terms of sub-sector analysis given the breadth of data already in circulation. While this is an understandable perspective, there is only limited documentation and articulation of how those other studies informed Compete decision-making regarding sub-sector engagement. Based on review of Annual Reports from Compete’s first three years of implementation, Compete focused on facilitating connections between SMEs and larger producers and exporters that have direct and more efficient access to markets. Working beyond anchor firms, the Project followed an industry-wide approach, leveraging off past USAID investments and helping smaller businesses link into, actively participate in, and benefit from sector-wide economic growth and development activities. It did so by supporting firms to build their managerial, marketing, and production capacities and skills to meet quantity and quality standards and become active participants in the global market place. Much of this occurred within the framework of the project’s Component B activities, and in line with the CIBER assessment findings. Component B activities also supported strengthening the enabling business environment and working with sector associations and business service organizations (BSOs) to enhance their current direct market opening activities in the targeted sectors. Compete also supported the diffusion of ICT through relevant business associations to support the competitiveness of the project‘s target sector as well as other related economic sectors; and to support the greater efficiency of government services to enhance competitiveness. These ranged from e￾government and modernization programs for administration of taxes and construction permits and import/export transactions to the private provision of ICT enabling services, such as payment and booking gateways in the tourism and hospitality industries. Come Year Four of the project, some notable shifts occurred in implementation and approach. In Year Four Compete described in its annual work plan a shift towards a Market Systems approach to correcting identified market failures that hinder the competitiveness of its four target sectors. USAID describes market systems as being complex systems that comprise multiple value chains and which include actors and dynamics at both household and community levels. “Achieving sustainable impact at scale is the objective of … [many] projects. Inclusive market system development is increasingly recognized as a potential means for achieving this objective. … an inclusive market system development approach focuses on building the capacity and resilience of local systems, leveraging the incentives and resources of the private sector, ensuring [an all-inclusive process], and stimulating change and innovation that continues to grow beyond the life of the project. Specifically, the objective of inclusive market system development is to catalyze a process that results in a market system that is (i) competitive—system actors are able to effectively innovate, upgrade and add value to their products and services to match market demand and maintain or grow market share; (ii) inclusive—delivering a sustainable flow of benefits to a range of actors, including the poor and otherwise marginalized, as well as to society as a whole; and (iii) resilient—system actors are able to address, absorb and overcome shocks in the market, policy environment, resource base or other aspect of the system.” 8 8 USAID, Leveraging Economic Opportunities (LEO): Brief – A Framework for Inclusive Market System Development. Found at: https://www.enterprise-development.org/wp-content/uploads/Market_Systems_Framework.pdf 18 The rationale described in the Year Four Annual Plan9 for this shift was to enable the project to promote competitiveness more holistically within the targeted sectors through a market systems lens that better identified and addressed complex constraints and inter-relations among market actors, market and household systems, environmental considerations, policy environment, and sociocultural factors, including poverty and gender. Through this shift, Compete aspired to reorient its role from an active participant in value chains it targeted to an outside agent that supports systemic change, as USAID’s best practice in economic development theory recommends. Central to this approach was the logic of defraying the risks and the costs of market development interventions for the private sector so that enterprises are able to bring new, innovative ideas, develop value-added products, and deliver them to new markets. While this proposed shift made sense, it is the perspective of the ET that Market Systems are complex and require nuanced understanding of root causes and constraints, which can be difficult and time-consuming to identify. Conversely, insufficient diagnostic processes can result in programs exerting their intervention efforts in the wrong places: dealing with symptoms and not underlying causes. Despite their stated intention to advance competitiveness through a market systems approach, this did not fully come to fruition with Compete focus from Year 4 on primarily focused at firm level. Interventions during the latter years of the project were based on details outlined in Evaluation Committee reports and Action Memos – prepared by Compete and approved by the Mission. These commonly lacked analytical depth, and did not provided detailed justification for the proposed interventions, or how the different activities within them will consolidate to achieve system wide changes. 10 What was starkly different in the ‘second phase’ of Compete implementation was the introduction in Spring 2015 of the Firm Level Assistance Program (FLAP), which sought to improve opportunities for not yet and near export-ready Palestinian firms (especially small and medium size) to receive technical assistance and raise their managerial capacity through Compete support. The core of the FLAP is a demand-driven, technical assistance process, with interventions including: building of management and financial capacity; development of sales and marketing plans; adoption of quality systems to improve operations; support to train and employ key staff; tailored apprenticeship projects to build capacity of the sector and address workforce development needs, and provision of equipment and production inputs.11 Approach to program monitoring and data collection The section below describes the project approach to data collection and monitoring and evaluation. The level of detail that it goes into aims to contextualize weaknesses identified by the ET in the Compete M&E system. These include a lack of alignment between data gathered and the KRAs agreed for the project, the absence of a life of project dynamic baseline for performance measurement, and discrepancies in terms of quantitative data presented across different information management and reporting systems. These weaknesses are a significant constraint on the evaluation given that the primary question of the evaluation is to ‘assess the extent to which project activities have been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework).” Compete collects a significant amount of data related to project performance, commencing with sector analysis and initial engagement of interested firms and farmers and followed up through its monitoring system. The project has also developed a sophisticated internal database that has specific application to Compete and its needs, and from which data can be reproduced as required for the PMP, Geo-MIS, annual reports and annual workplans. Data also feeds into activity selection processes. Demonstration by Compete 10 Refer to potato, baby cucumber, herb value chains as examples of significant investment occurring with only limited documentation of rationale and justification, and West Bank Grapes for an example of a value chain with comparatively detailed documentation.. 11 Drawn from project provided documentation related to the purpose and application of FLAP, including ‘Compete project overview 2018’ powerpoint presented to USAID March 2018 19 of the capacity of the internal database highlighted its ability to quickly generate refined reports, as per user requirements. At inception, Compete prepared a Results Framework (RF) to guide project implementation and performance measurement for the life of the project. A modified RF was prepared for Gaza on entry in 2015.12 See for a full diagrammatic presentation of both West Bank and Gaza RFs. Figure 1: Compete Results Framework - West Bank Figure 2: Compete Results Framework – Gaza Strip 12 Compete Year Five Annual Plan, Annex A 20 The RF identifies three intermediate results (IRs) and 13 corresponding key result areas (KRAs), with two of the latter repeated under IR1 and IR2. All three IRs and their corresponding KRAs are linked to Component A. While indicators were developed for measurement of some KRAs, there are no separate indicators for the IRs. While KRAs were identified for Component B in the Award document13, the project’s results framework does not reflect these. Neither the contract nor the project operational documents developed thereafter specify an IR for Component B. 14 While those indicators used for measurement of some KRAs are valid to measuring progress towards the project goal of strengthening the competitiveness and export potential of key sectors essential to the future prosperity of the Palestinian economy, it is noted that there are also KRAs for which no specific data are collected, or where the KRA can be only partially measured. This weakness is particularly true of more qualitative results such as ‘reliability and dependability’ of relationships; increase in ‘improved’ products,’ or the ‘improved image’ of Palestinian goods where no specific measurement approach has occurred. As part of their contractual obligations, Compete has developed and maintained a Performance Management Plan (PMP), which primarily describes the project RF, processes for monitoring implementation, data collection, verification, analysis and reporting, in addition to detailing roles and responsibilities pertaining to monitoring and reporting. Compete reviews and updates their PMP on an annual basis including review of the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) and PMP Matrix, which are also approved by the project COR. This matrix includes 57 indicators, of which 11 are operational indicators. While indicators have been developed and tracked to measure performance against IRs, there are fewer indicators capable of tracking performance against the specific KRAs, with the KRAs in the textbox below having either no or incomplete measurement indicators. For example, one key result is described as “increased number, reliability and dependability of relationships between Palestinian firms and Israeli and international buyers”. While the project has the capacity to measure number of relationships, no strategy exists for measuring their reliability and dependability cannot. KRAs identified in the contract for both project components were tracked through a set of operational and management indicators, but linkages between these indicators and the respective KRAs were not explicitly made, particularly for Component B. In Year 3, some attempts were made to establish such linkages for Component A, but their collection proved irregular in following years. Linkages between Component B KRAs and performance indicators were never made in any of the monitoring documents. However, there are some component B relevant indicators in the PMP. As a result, project monitoring and reporting does not holistically reflect project achievements at the level of KRAs or IRs. Narrative reporting pays some attention to KRAs, but generally speaking it is difficult to reach firm conclusions around performance against several of the KRAs. This leaves a situation whereby performance measurement is primarily seen through the lens of the big￾ticket indicators of sales, exports and growth. For both sales and export indicators across all sectors, 13 Contract No. AID-294-C-12-00001, Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project, Part One; p.19 14 Contract No. AID-294-C-12-00001, Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project, Part One KRAs with no measurement indicators: o Increase in quality of Palestinian goods o Improved image of Palestinian products and services in local and global markets o Demonstration effects being replicated at equal of higher levels without project support KRAs with incomplete measurement indicators: o Increased number, reliability and dependability of relationships between Palestinian firms and Israeli and international buyers o Increased market share of Palestinian products and services in West Bank and Gaza o Increased added value by Palestinian firms for products exported to Israel and beyond 21 Compete and USAID have agreed that the following methodology and assumptions could be used for data collection, which are detailed in PIRS (and directly quoted) as follows: A. If assisted firms are able to split value of exports as a result of USG assistance, M&E will report this value. B. If assisted firms are unable to split value of exports as a result of USG assistance, M&E will report the increase by comparing against baseline (before Compete intervention). C. When Compete interventions lead to a significant influence on a firm with regards to value of exports, M&E will report the total export value of the assisted firms. Examples of ‘significant influence’ were cited as adoption of international standards certification, direct firm level technical assistance, participation in trade shows and exhibitions etc. D. The value of exports is also affected by Compete's interventions indirectly, as companies and firms are carrying out interventions and strategies that they observe in the sector that have been developed with support from Compete (Attribution) - such as forward Contracting. E. Sales from assisted firms in Gaza to West Bank or from West Bank to Gaza will be considered as exports. 15 Performance measurement is further complicated by irregularities in the project baseline. While all performance indicators should have a baseline and targets set prior to reporting data, the Compete PMP matrix has gaps in reporting life of project baseline and targets for a number of indicators. (For more detailed analysis of baseline and data gathering shifts, refer to Annex G.) From Year 5 onwards, Compete has been using a dynamic baseline for indicators related to exports, sales and employment. However, their internal database has annual baselines that are not aggregated into life of project baselines or reflected in the PMP matrix. Despite the fact that Compete met and exceeded their annual targets for the above indicators, the absence of life of project dynamic baselines and inconsistency in reporting life of project targets and achievements is a limitation for holistic quantitative review of the project’s results. It is also noted that the project was directed to disaggregate indicators by sex when measuring person-level data. Despite the fact that Compete collects and is able to provide sex disaggregated employment data internally, replacing the ‘sector disaggregated % increase in employment’ indicator by a non-sex or sector disaggregated indicator of ‘# of new jobs created’ from Year 5 onwards prevents gender trend analysis of employment across sectors. It also restricts the PMP from providing a holistic overview of employment trends over the life of the project given that units of measurement differ. The summary RF at Table 1 below highlights in red those indicators for which no monitoring data are collected (and orange where not all facets of the KRA can measured). ‘Best available measure’ indicates the ET’s assessment of the best data source available for measurement of the result. Table 1: Compete Component A Results Framework performance measurement, data gathering and years collected as per Project PMP Project Intermediate Result One: Exports and investments increased Best available measure Years measure collected Sectors 15 Compete M&E Plan Year 7, p.25 22 • Increased revenues for Palestinian firms • Increased added value by Palestinian firms for products exported to Israel and beyond • Improved image of Palestinian products and services in local market place • Increased number, reliability and dependability of relationships between Palestinian firms and Israeli and international buyers • Increased number of international markets for Palestinian products and services • Increased market share of Palestinian products and services in West Bank and Gaza • % increase in sales • Value of exports • No measurement • # of new contracts executed with international buyers/ firms • # of new markets accessed • Sales- Exports (not captured in the PMP) • LOP, for tourism,, Y5 only • LOP • Y1-Y4 • LOP • LOP • All, except tourism • All (no indicator for Fishing in PMP) • ICT & Agriculture • ICT, Agriculture & Stone and Marble • All Project Intermediate Result Two: Innovation of products and services increased Best available measure Years measure collected Sectors • Increase in both new and/or improved Palestinian products and services • Increase in quality of Palestinian goods • Increased added value by Palestinian firms for products exported to Israel and beyond • Improved image of Palestinian products and services in local and global markets • Demonstration effects being replicated at equal of higher levels without project support • Various, tailored to sectors • No measurement • Value of exports • No measurement • No measurement • LOP, stone & marble Y2 only • LOP • All, except Garment and Fishing, stone & marble Y2 only • All (no indicator for Fishing in PMP) Project Intermediate Result Three: Employment increased, skills expanded Best available measure Years measure collected Sectors • Increased employment of youth (under 30 years old) • Increased employment in firms targeted by Compete • # of youth gaining employment or better employment • # of new jobs • increase in employment • Y3-Y6 • Y5-Y6 • Y1-Y4 • Aggregated for all sectors • Aggregated for all sectors • All sectors in WB While not a stated result, data are collected in relation to skills expansion and inclusion of women • # of individuals receiving short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training • # of training courses developed and delivered through the hospitality school • # of women in training and capacity building courses that improve skills in the ICT and Tourism sectors • Y2-Y6 • Y2-Y4 • Y3-Y4 • Agriculture • Tourism • ICT & Tourism It is also noted that no results are included within the RF that directly consider performance in relation to Component B – to assist in development of Palestinian Business Support Organizations and Service Providers – despite there being four expected results defined in the project contract. Furthermore, two Component B relevant measures were dropped from the PMP at the end of Year 4. See below. 23 Table 2: Component B results as per project contract Results described in contract Measures of relevance and years collected as per project PMP Increased use of BSOs by Palestinian firms to resolve constraints to global competitiveness of specific products and services targeted by the project. • # of new services provided by BSOs and BSPs (Y2-Y6) • % increase in # of firms receiving services from BSOs and BSPs (Y2-Y4) • % increase in revenues of BSOs and BSPs (Y2-Y4) • # of BSOs and BSPs receiving assistance (Y2-Y6) Increased use of BSPs by Palestinian firms in acquiring needed services to improve such things as packaging, branding, and marketing of products and services. Increased use of business-to-business services in the areas of accounting, transport, ICT, and other services. Increased financial viability of BSOs providing needed services for Palestinian firms competing in the global marketplace. Even within the more quantitative result areas, data gathering has been inconsistently collated and often gathered in a form that is incompatible with the baseline data that had been assembled. Table 3 below highlights data gathering and reporting discrepancies. It is noted that even at sector level there is no one place where all key performance data are available, and that there is inconsistency in data being reported through different reporting mechanisms. Table 3: Quantitative data comparison across PMP16, the Year Six Annual Report (Oct 2017) and Compete managed internal database17 Compete operational indicators were subject to Data Quality Assessments (DQAs) by the Mission in Year 2 and Year 6. DQA reports indicate that the data meet USAID data quality standards including reliability, validity, timeliness, precision and integrity. 16 Compete PMP matrix was generated from GeoMIS on February 25, 2018. For sales, PMP data is reported as % increase, however due to missing life of project targets and achievements across all sectors, it is difficult to obtain the total increase in value of sales per sector. Also, there is no life of project baseline for ICT. For exports, PMP data is not available for fishing and Compete dropped the exports indicator for tourism sector as the project has no significant influence on the flow of international tourists/visitors. For employment, Compete replaced the sector disaggregated % increase in employment indicator in Year 5 by a non-sector disaggregated indicator of # of new jobs created preventing trend analysis of employment across sectors. For investment, data for furniture, fishing and garment is aggregated on GeoMIS under one category 17 Provided as per ET data request. For investment, Compete did not provide beneficiary’s investment and USAID investment in garment and furniture is aggregated under one category, in addition, it is not clear whether fishing included under garment and furniture or with agriculture. 24 4.1 Evaluation Question 1: To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework) Effectiveness overview It is firstly important to acknowledge Compete for the scale and breadth of its programming in the West Bank and Gaza. With 1,550 different beneficiary farmers, firms and support organizations working across seven sectors and 41 sub-sectors or value chains, the project has engaged the Palestinian private sector with depth and breadth, and is now recognized by firms across the SME landscape as a project able to support evidence based initiatives to promote growth, especially those with export orientation or aspirations. Intermediate and key result areas of the project are diagrammatically described below for both West Bank and Gaza. As can be seen in the table below, agriculture is the overwhelmingly dominant sector accounting for 79% of supported beneficiaries and 43% of total project expenditure. While tourism accounts for 33% of expenditure and an $81,347 average expenditure per beneficiary, this figure is somewhat distorted given that it includes substantial investment in historic site renovations, which related to a pre-project commitment made by USAID that was built into Compete. Table 4: Compete Overview Years 1-7 18 Sector Total No. of firms supported % of total firms supported No. of sub￾sectors Total USAID Contribution % of total Contri￾bution WB/Gaza split Ave. spend per beneficiary Agri￾culture 1,220 79% 23 $13,291,686 43% 74.2%/ 25.8% $10,841.50 Fishing 5 0% 2 $ 473,077 2% 0%/ 100% $94,615.40 Garment 33 2% 1 $ 624,467 2% 0%/ 100% $18,923.24 ICT 120 8% 4 $ 3,863,132 13% 81.5%/ 18.5% $32,192.77 Tourism 126 8% 6 $ 10,249,726 33% 96.1%/ 3.9% $81,347.00 Stone & Marble 46 3% 5 $ 2,177,060 7% 100%/0% $47,327.40 Total 1,550 100% 41 $ 30,619,148 100% 100% $19,716.68 As described in Section Four above, there are difficulties associated with conclusively determining results against the full spread of results described in the RF given that several of the key result areas were not measured in a systematic form. Despite this, the ET worked to understand project performance in relation to those more qualitatively oriented results where clear indicators were not available. Across the key result areas that were measured, Compete reports considerable success, attributing $287,448,427 in sales, 5,684 new full or part time jobs, and more than $60 million of private investment (in co-contributions) by beneficiary firms to project performance. When trying to identify common themes to project success, it is noted that Compete support to beneficiaries ranges in scale from $405 (baby cucumber) to $547,238 (carrots)19, and that average support across sectors ranges from $10,886 in agriculture to $94,615 in (Gazan) fisheries. Across this spread, the project has calibrated its approach to the different needs that come with different investment levels, 18 Compiled from sampling data provided to the ET by Compete 19 The largest grant of $2.224 million was made to the Centre for Cultural Heritage Preservation in relation to site renovation within the tourism sector, and actually involved multiple sub-grants. 25 including capacity to work with larger numbers of smaller scale producers on similar interventions simultaneously, as can be seen in the netting and T-bar support to grape value chain. Of the 1,550 different partners, close to half of these are concentrated in the two agriculture sub-sectors of grapes (440) and baby cucumber (243). Totaling 44% of all beneficiaries, these two sectors received just 5.4% ($1,655,192) of total investment. Summary whole-of-project analysis of numbers of beneficiaries and spread of levels of investment can be found at Annex E - Overview of Compete engagement by sector and sub-sector. While these levels of investment are not surprising given the nature and needs of these sub-sectors, it is noted that these larger sub-sector scale interventions commenced with only limited documentation detailing preliminary analysis, the proposed overall strategy and objectives underpinning intervention with a sizeable number of actors within a value chain. As described above, it is the perspective of the ET that structured sector analysis is limited within the project and significantly removed from the approach proposed in DAI’s technical proposal whereby the project would have facilitated the emergence of SWGs, which would be key to informing sector approaches. While there is only limited documentation of the project’s sector and sub-sector analysis and strategic approach, there are sub-sectors where the actual actions taken reflects sophisticated market systems understanding. For example, while Compete’s role in the baby cucumber sub-sector is poorly documented, it was apparent through meetings with project supported value chain participants that in implementation Compete touches virtually every point of the value chain, and includes astute, targeted investments that address bottlenecks while also being active in facilitating consolidation of relationships between producers, aggregators and buyers. In three of the ten agricultural sub-sectors sampled by the evaluation, the ET observed that strong complementarity and synergies between activities within a sub-sector has contributed to an appreciation of the mutual benefit of each activity. For example, producers and aggregators told the ET that the provision of cold storage facilities in Gaza aligned with irrigation support to producers has encouraged potato producers to expand their production capacity, recognizing that cold storage offers the opportunity of enhancing quality allowing flexibility that contributes to more profitable market engagement. Aggregators report that this has in turn enhanced the viability of the cold store as an enterprise, since it has contributed to increased use and turn over. However, even within this example, a remaining vulnerability exists in the form of the cost and reliability of electricity in Gaza. More generally, the ET identified universal demand across all sectors in Gaza for support to firm based solar power development. Conversely, there are also sectors where analysis, strategy and approach is better documented, but where actual implementation doesn’t seem to have yet followed through on that analysis and strategy. Within the grape sub-sector, Compete has developed a project supporting a market systems approach that addresses production, quality, processing and marketing issues. By distributing inputs to farmers, delivering training and directly supporting the introduction of farm management and irrigation systems, Compete took on the role of a market actor. 20During the evaluation field work, the ET met with five producers who had received T￾bars (to support hanging of grapes), netting and/or irrigation assistance, but none were aware of other aspects of Compete support to the sub-sector, and all but one was unaware of opportunities in the value chain beyond the most basic description of production and selling within their local market without any thought of value adding. Having said that, in Hebron, Compete is assisting Dawalina Company for Agricultural Manufacturing in installing a new line of grape byproducts production including grapes molasses, jam, vinegar, raisins and malban. A notable exception amongst grape producing beneficiaries was a dynamic agricultural entrepreneur who had 150 dunum of grapes, and had received two separate grants of netting for a total of 13 dunums of grapes. While he was able to describe his own approach within the grape market, he was not aware of the broader grape sub-sector approach of Compete that he had received assistance through. This felt like a lost opportunity given the knowledge he had and his sophisticated understanding of advanced technical approaches such related to immediate post-harvest management of stock to avoid weather related damage, 20 Refer grape sector strategy attached to Action Memos of all grape sector participants 26 and also current market forces whereby he closely monitored price data by region and had identified buyers in Israel and Russia. Another sector where the ET observes a lack of clear direction and strategy is tourism. Compete work in the tourism sector has been broad-based to the point that it seems to lack coherence across its six sub￾sectors, with no sense amongst beneficiaries interviewed during the evaluation of the big picture objective of Compete assistance to the sector. Tourism beneficiaries noted that Compete’s lack of detailed engagement of any one sub-sector is compounded by tourism being a sector populated by a cross-section of donors too often working in isolation and/or not being sufficiently invested to achieve traction around the profound changes that firms within the sector feel are needed. Compete itself appears to be spread thin across the sector working in six sub-sectors, with the ET told by beneficiaries that no one sub-sector intervention had achieved sufficient traction to be considered sustainable given lack of progress in other sub-sectors. A common theme cutting across the most successful activities observed by the evaluation is that the project’s best results are achieved when either a market is already secured, where a clearly identified market opportunity exists, or where opportunity exists to activate an already capable actor to take advantage of a niche within a market. Baby cucumber, fresh herbs, and strawberries in the West Bank, fisheries in Gaza, and potatoes in both regions stand out within agriculture as notable successes, with that success based in the confidence of different value chain actors that a secure market existed for their product, and that opportunity existed for enhanced prices through value adding and investment in product diversification. Within the ICT sector, Compete provided staffing support (internships) in the earlier phase of the project to assist firms to target specific, known opportunities such as the development of health information management systems or positioning of Palestinian ICT businesses as an efficient back office to larger operations in Europe or North America. The Palestinian Territories also offer certain niche opportunities, which Compete has supported firms to tap. Compete support is reported by companies as key in them addressing the problem of slurry by-product within the stone and marble sector. For example, Compete facilitated technical support and exposure to leading producers in Italy allowed for new, innovative products to be developed, which bring the benefit of also helping resolve the critical environmental problem of slurry damaging river systems in West Bank and Israel. However, even though both ‘niche’ and the ‘product’ have been identified, discussions with beneficiary firms in the sector suggest that further support is needed to ensure sustainability of firms by supporting regulatory reforms around light weight building products, awareness raising and support to market expansion, as well as a general scaling up of production to assist West Bank in being recognized as a serious market actor. The volume of slurry available to production is significant and affordable, and currently needing to be disposed of through a costly process of removal to waste sites. This under-utilized ‘slurry problem’ and the innovative nature of the product is in the opinion of the ET a compelling argument for sustained support to this sub-sector. Another common theme observed amongst many of Compete’s success stories relates to firms that enjoy at least some freedom of movement and confidence that targeted markets can be accessed as required. This is most notable in Gaza where those firms in the agriculture, garments, and ICT sectors who have the capacity to reliably move produce through Karem Shalom are almost universally significant sales growth, based on Compete reporting. Conversely, project beneficiaries in these sectors in Gaza speak of ‘lost opportunities’ based on their lack of mobility and inability to meet with potential clients. An alternative niche actioned within the project approach is support to firms capable of ‘input substitution’, thus reducing reliance on procurement of inputs from abroad through supply chains that are fragile and vulnerable to disruption. Reliable access to inputs – not to mention the potential of reduced costs – was reported by interviewees across the respective value chains as key to building investor confidence. The emergence and availability through Compete support of both seedling production in the West Bank and fish fingerling production in Gaza has been very well received within relevant sub-sectors, as evidenced by their inability to meet demand. 27 4.1.1 Levels of investment and revenues of participating SMEs Compete works to a basic principle of at least 50% cost sharing in West Bank, though demonstrates some flexibility when working with poorer farmers where in-kind investments have been incorporated in to the approach. Due to the economic malaise of Gaza, cost sharing expectations have been reduced to a minimum of 30% to encourage participation levels. Compete’s cost-sharing based implementation modality has proven very popular in both West Bank and Gaza. This is evidenced by the 247621 FLAP applications Compete received from firms in the West Bank and Gaza by the end of Year 6 of implementation, the breadth of partnerships actually entered into by Compete with private businesses, and the satisfaction of nearly all businesses met by the ET with the support they received from Compete. When considering Compete’s role in encouraging firm level investment, the following perspectives were advanced by interviewees: • In nearly all interviews conducted by the ET with project beneficiaries, Compete’s contribution was said to have incentivized companies to invest in growing their business and tapping emerging market opportunities, since it reduced the risk associated with piloting innovation, developing the quality of production for higher-return markets, or chasing new markets. • In several cases these investments were coupled with incentives to firms to integrate small-scale producers into export and high-value market channels (most prominent examples are potatoes in Gaza, and cucumbers, grapes, and guava in the West Bank). • Targeted support to address strategic sector bottlenecks, particularly those that come at high cost overcame significant obstacles to growth within sub-sectors (such as vegetable sorting/washing machines; heating units for hanging strawberry production in West Bank; high-end engraving machinery within stone and marble sector; etc.; staffing and workforce development support directed at a specific contract opportunity within ICT; etc.). • Recognition of the spin off effect of strategic sector investments, such as project support to a cool room motivating farmers to increase production, which in turn leads to business generation and consolidation for the investor/aggregator. • Political and market access concerns are still a major inhibitor to investment, both from within a company and also external investment. • The concept of cost-sharing doesn’t fit neatly with all sectors, especially when it comes to youth inclusion. For example, needs of the ICT sector, especially ‘start-ups’ which by definition are commonly starting from next to nothing. • Compete support in helping understand and access market opportunities helped encourage and justify willingness to invest (highlighting importance of Compete focus on market understanding, identification and engagement). Understandably given the complexity of attribution of private investment choices and motivations, project data related to firm investment beyond the required contributions (to secure grants) is one of the weaker aspects of the monitoring approach. This is highlighted by the extraordinary variance between project reporting and data reported in Geo-MIS, as outlined below. Table 5: Compete partner investment data by sector 21 Compete Year 6 Annual Report, page 8. 28 Based on data drawn from GeoMIS, the following table describes investment by both Compete and beneficiaries, disaggregated by components A and B, highlighting capacity in agriculture and tourism for firms to cost share in relation to component A but less so in relation to component B. Fig 3: Compete investment by Component A and B Project reporting in relation to sales is far more consistently reported, with firms reporting both total sales and export sales from which ‘local sales’ can be calculated. Table 6: Compete partner sales data by sector While it is assumed that total sales align with the agreed PIRS definitions, there are weaknesses observed in actual reporting related to ‘exports’, with sales in Gaza that are known to be destined for West Bank not being reported as ‘exports’ due to them being sold through an aggregator within Gaza who then sells on to West Bank. This distortion can be seen in the fisheries sector where the overwhelming end destination for product is West Bank, yet the majority of sales are reported as being in Gaza. While this is not an error per se, it does distort understanding of sub-sector performance. The figures below detail annual sales and exports growth by sector. (Note that sales are used by Compete as a proxy for revenues.) 9.3 3.0 1.9 3.7 0.9 6.5 3.7 3.3 0.1 1.2 2.8 1.2 0.2 2.5 - 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.4 - - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Agriculture ICT Stone & Marble Tourism Fishing, Garment&Furniture Agriculture ICT Stone & Marble Tourism Fishing, Garment&Furniture USAID Beneficiary Investment ($M) Component A Component B 29 Fig 4: Compete attributed annual increase in sales by sector22 Fig 5: Compete attributed annual increase in exports by sector23 While they suggest agriculture as the standout sector, continued growth of agriculture reflects the fact that it is the only sector that has remained a full programming priority over the duration of the project. Beyond agriculture, sales have been relatively static over the course of the project. Within the overall evaluation sample, 68.5% of interviewees reported increase in revenues that they attribute to Compete, with that number rising to 82.8% for agriculture beneficiaries. In terms of increase in exports, 59.5% of the overall sample reported a Compete attributed increase, and 75% in agriculture. 4.1.2 New markets accessed/quality and reliability of relationships with external buyers Over its life to date, Compete reports having facilitated linkages with 102 new markets, as described below. Note that no ‘new market’ data is collected for tourism. 22 Source: Compete managed internal database, May 1, 2018 23 Source: Compete managed internal database, May 1, 2018 $- $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Sales ($M) Agriculture ICT Tourism Stone & Marble Garment Fishing $- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0 $45.0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Ecports ($M) Ag ICT Tourism Stone &Marble Fishing Garment 30 Fig 6: Number of new markets accessed by sector24 A notable project approach, especially in the agriculture sector, has been to support aggregation of production, helping aggregators chase larger contracts which in turn connects them with larger and more professional and reliable value chain actors. A tandem approach reported by the Compete CoP has been to invest in promoting quality and quality assurance as a strategy for strengthening relationships with buyers. In select value chains such as baby cucumbers and potatoes this has strengthened the relationship between producer and aggregator, as well as the ability of a sector to give confidence to buyers. For example, based on collective interviews undertaken by the ET across the potato and baby cucumber value chains, it is apparent that post-harvest support has contributed to improvements in production quality, given this facilitates quality control measures and enhanced prices available to those who meet quality standards. This is reported by value chain participants to have led to investment and expansion of production, which in turn has given buyer’s confidence that they will receive a reliable supply of quality product. Unfortunately, sub￾sector disaggregated data is not available to validate expansion of areas under cultivation or added value. Compete has also played an important role in supporting different firms to get their ‘leg in the door’ through support to participation in trade shows and other buyer focused approaches. This is appreciated by firms, and is seen as particularly significant in a context such as the Palestinian Territories given external perceptions are often based on the difficulties associated with doing business, and thus have potential to derail potential relationships. Throughout the evaluation, stakeholders including stone and marble and agriculture products companies in addition to tour operators and support organizations spoke of the importance of being able to meet with buyers face to face in order to reassure potential buyers and move beyond negative stereotypes. This need is voiced even more strongly in Gaza where it is common for opportunities to be missed due to restrictions on mobility that prevent meetings with potential buyers, as well as face-to-face customer care and after sale support as is the case with one of the ICT businesses interviewed. A universal perspective across all interviews in Gaza is that movement restrictions are a serious impediment to Gazan businesses and that more active support from Compete (and USAID) to help resolve such issues would be appreciated. 24 Data source: Project PMP matrix, February 25, 2018. LOP refers to Life of Project achievement and it reflects the aggregate up to Y6, however, and as per the indicator PIRS in Y6 PMP “if Company A and Company B accessed Market X, M&E will count them as two new markets accessed by beneficiaries, but one unique market for aggregate tracking.” 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LOP Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 53 15 13 6 7 12 23 3 5 5 3 7 26 4 8 6 5 3 Agri ICT Stone & Marble 31 4.1.3 Degree to which firms feel supported by Business Associations and Service Providers Predictably, the degree that different project participants feel supported by business associations and Service Providers varies considerably. Within the evaluation sample, just 24.5% of the total felt that their business interests were adequately supported by a business association or support provider, with that number rising to 30% amongst agriculture beneficiaries. The ET observed higher levels of satisfaction with Compete within those sectors and sub-sectors where it is clear that Compete has a deep and intimate understanding of the dynamics that drive the value chain and multiple touch points within it. Within some agriculture sub-sectors, Component B type actors such as cooperatives, post-harvest entities and aggregators have been supported to good effect and in a manner integrated within that specific sub-sector. When such support is strategically considered, a context of mutual benefit is achieved as can be seen in the oft mentioned potato and baby cucumber value chains. A conundrum observed by the ET and faced by Compete is that firms often have only limited confidence in the capacity of their relevant business association, and question the worth of the project engaging them, yet at the same time bemoan the absence of support and enabling services available to them. However, at the same time, Compete also offers a unique opportunity through which business associations and support organizations can be supported and strengthened in their work, contributing to downstream sustainability and capacity for targeted sectors. This said, business associations interviewed also report disappointment with Compete’s disengagement from them, and highlight a need for further support to strengthen their member services and outreach. In the earlier phase of the project, Compete seems to have been more invested in supporting ‘component B’ type entities with this diminishing over later years as the project moved towards more direct firm level assistance. Agriculture is the one sector where strong support has been maintained to component B type initiatives, where it is clear the project has played a key role in terms of skills transfer and capacity building (cooperatives) and aggregation and market engagement (post-harvest actors). As described already, this breadth of touch points within a sub-sector appears to be a key indicator of success and satisfaction with Compete performance. In each of the three other lead sectors (ICT, tourism and stone & marble), the ET encountered frustration amongst Business Associations and Support Organizations that Compete’s shift away from component B type entities had been poorly communicated and/or had occurred just at a point when momentum was being achieved. Support to hotel classification, shift away from incubator support to start ups, and a scaling down of the project’s relationship with Paltrade were all cited as evidence of Compete commitment to component B having diminished over the course of the project. Compared to business associations, Compete’s support to service providers seems to have been more sustained, with the value they are held in by their sector closely connected to the degree that their services respond to and benefit other value chain actors. Across all interviews, positive impression of support organizations is strongest within agriculture based on the health of relationships fostered between producers, aggregators and buyers. 4.1.4 Domestic market share While the language of Compete talks very much to an export oriented approach, the project appears to be effective in supporting companies to attain a greater share of their domestic market through support geared to enhancing their competitiveness. 36.2% of the evaluation sample reported an increase in domestic sales following Compete support, with that number reaching 54.2% amongst agriculture beneficiaries Understandably, the project has not been able to measure market share in any robust form. However, domestic sales attributed to Compete can be calculated by subtracting export sales from overall sales. This does not however shed light on the question of overall market share given the absence of baseline data. As can be seen in Figure Seven below, $85.4 million of domestic sales are attributed to Compete, with $70.4 million of that within agriculture. 32 Fig 7: Compete attributed increase in domestic sales by sector in West Bank and Gaza25 One crucial dynamic of ‘domestic market share’ highlighted repeatedly by beneficiary firms, associations and other stakeholders is the importance of access to West Bank for Gazan producers. While this was stated by some West Bank firms, it was stated in ALL Gaza interviews. Given the very weak state of the Gazan economy, the only real opportunity currently available for growth of the Gazan economy is access to the West Bank and beyond (with the exception of the garments sector whose growth has been largely driven by opportunities in Israel). In the eyes of Gazan producers, the West Bank is as good as an export market since it offers opportunities and prices not present in Gaza. When West Bank market access is assured to Gazan producers (as is mostly the case for Compete supported firms producing potatoes, vegetables, strawberries, fish, and garments) they are highly competitive, based on their lower cost base in terms of salaries, and in the case of producers in the agriculture sector also have easier water access than producers in West Bank – although the quality and ongoing viability of this water supply is a critical issue needing to be faced (discussed below in 4.2 – Sustainability). In some scenarios, Gazan produce has the capacity to threaten West Bank production, with West Bank strawberry producers very concerned by the threat posed by Gazan strawberries which are cheaper and enjoy a greater status in the market. There has also been progress in terms of import substitution and also notable innovations and progress in production of various inputs previously needing to have been procured abroad. One notable example of true import substitution has come from support to the food processing company Al Salam, which produces frozen vegetables. With the increased production and quality coming from its new food processing unit which Compete partially supported, it reports that the import share of the Palestinian frozen vegetable market has reduced from 95% to 35%. 26 While enhanced domestic market share is most commonly seen within the agriculture sector, the ICT sector has also enjoyed some domestic success. H&W MENA was supported by Compete to develop health information management systems that they have geared towards both international and local markets. The company is now responsible for delivery and management of systems in several West Bank hospitals. In Gaza, ICT firms Al Tariq and Gaza Gateway have both achieved traction in both local and international markets, highlighting the lesser impediment of the blockade to the ICT sector. 25 Calculated by deducting export sales from total sales reported in Compete managed internal database 26 Interview with CEO of Al Salam Group, Hebron 4th April 2018. $70.4 $1.0 $3.3 $3.9 $6.0 $85.4 $6.6 $0.8 $1.5 $- $3.9 $6.0 $18.7 $63.9 $0.3 $1.8 $0.7 $- $- $66.7 $- $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0 $90.0 Ag ICT Tourism Stone &Marble Fishing Garment Total Domestic sales ($M) WBG Gaza WB 33 4.1.5 Quality and value adding Quality and value adding are other key result areas for which data has not been formally gathered. While the project has facilitated the ‘opportunity’ for quality improvements and value adding amongst participating firms through awareness raising and technical interventions, it is the observation of the ET the project primarily leaves the market to dictate standards for firms to work to. This can be seen in the export orientation of the project, whereby buyers demanded quality improvements that have in turn resulted in added value, building positive momentum within the sector that has seen other producers change their own practice as they attempt to achieve the better prices on offer. Compete capacity to leverage this dynamic is best seen in the baby cucumber value chain, where technology (netting) has improved quality and price of product, and sorting machines have aided quality assurance for buyers, contributing to forward contracts. Observation of this dynamic, has led to technology uptake that has diffused to non-project beneficiaries. It is worth noting that in earlier years of the project, emphasis was placed on quality improvement through support to internationally recognized certification. These included Integrated Pest Management (IPM), British Retail Consortium (BRC), Global Good Agriculture Practices (GlobalGAP), ISO 22000, Social Accountability (SA) 8000, ISO 17025, and Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI). Support was also provided – through the Arab Hotel Association - to upgrade the quality of service within the hotel industry through workforce development and curriculum development for hotel management and tourism, as well as support to service￾gap assessments in conjunction with the Hotel Certification Process. Within the agriculture sector, the project has frequently identified strategic opportunities to progress quality as a strategy to achieve better prices. Producers report that cleaning and sorting machines give greater surety to agricultural buyers that they will receive what they have asked for. Support to laboratories has increased interest and awareness of phyto-sanitary standards within several value chains. Cool rooms have protected produce from weather damage and allowed producers to avoid selling at peak production times. Each of these have the potential to add value, and to also build momentum of how producers look at and engage the market. Within the baby cucumber sub-sector, producers spoke of a quantum shift in attitude to quality assurance following the arrival of a Compete provided sorting machine which objectively highlighted who produced the required quality and who didn't. Within the stone and marble sub-sector, the project has moved from a broad-brush approach towards one that is focused on high end product. Compete supported Creative Building Solutions report that the thermal qualities of products being developed with slurry are outstanding and therefore offer a niche opportunity for production of lightweight building materials that dovetail with current trends in the construction industry. The project has also supported the introduction of high tech cutting and engraving machinery that allow for production of high end engraved marble and granite. Sections of the tourism sector are working towards provision of higher value boutique travel opportunities, building off site renovation work undertaken through the project. For example, Peace by Piece travel provides individual and small group travel opportunities that are using and benefiting from Compete supported renovated sites as one aspect of their itinerary. When beneficiaries were asked whether their partnership with Compete had contributed to them adding value to their product, 69.3% of the total sample and 93.1% within agriculture reported positively. 4.1.6 Project generated employment As reported by the Compete CoP, Compete views employment growth as being best served by a strengthened economic outlook for firms, rather than employment being pump primed by the project. Within this perspective is recognition that competitiveness might even contribute to a reduction in employment within some firms when technological advances reduce labor demands, but also an assumption that such developments would bring increased employment in other segments of the value chain or in supporting value chains. 34 Despite this, the project attributes significant employment growth to the project, with 5,684 jobs having been generated up until the end of Year Six. 27 A weakness within the employment data is that full time and part time employment is not disaggregated. Given that 79% of all jobs attributed to Compete have been within the agriculture sector, it is likely that a significant proportion of that number relates to part time, seasonal employment. It is also important to note that 3,198 (or 56.2%) of the total number of jobs created life of project were generated in Year 6, and that 2,879 of these were in the agriculture sector. While there is no data available for such analysis, it is the assumption of the ET that the majority of these agricultural jobs would be seasonal and unskilled, related to burgeoning production in baby cucumber, potato and grape value chains. Across the evaluation sample, 48.3% of firms assessed Compete support as having contributed to them employing additional people. Of those firms that had employed additional people, 69% reported employment being a mix of both full time and part time employment, with only 13.8% saying generated employment was only part time and 17.2% saying employment was only full time. Fig 8: Compete generated employment Years 1 – 6 by sector, region, gender28 in West Bank and Gaza Despite this, interviews with beneficiary firms in some agricultural sub-sectors such as baby cucumbers and fresh herbs are demonstrating that increased expectations of quality amongst buyers demands greater attention to detail in production, which in turn is rewarded through higher prices being paid. This is allowing for better wages to be paid. It is also noted across greenhouse using sub-sectors that greenhouse based production systems open opportunities for greater participation of women, with strawberry producers now employing more women compared to when their production was open-field. Despite strong Compete attributed employment generation, just 10.3% of sampled firms were willing to describe Compete efforts to promote women’s employment as ‘proactive’, with that number reducing further to 6.3% in the agriculture sector. 27 Compete Year six Annual Report, p.5 28 Data source: Compete managed internal database 3094 403 128 174 0 0 3772 936 204 28 36 0 0 1204 459 21 6 0 27 144 657 9 18 0 0 0 0 27 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Agriculture ICT Tourism Stone & Marble Fishing Garment Total WB (M) WB (F) Gaza (M) Gaza (F) 35 Fig 9: Number of new jobs created by sector (Y1-Y6) in West Bank and Gaza29 Overall, the project has been effective in enabling employment opportunities for youth with a total of 2,801 jobs having been generated until end of year 6, compared to its life of project target of 785. As with employment statistics more generally, youth employment opportunities surged in Year 6 with 67% of the total number of youth jobs generated that year. Fig 10: Project attributed youth employment Y1-Y630 4.1.7 Approach to skills transfer and workforce development Based on data review undertaken by the ET, a notable feature of Compete is that it has not invested heavily in the provision of technical assistance to firms, preferring to draw on pre-existing skills within the sector, as well as the technical capacity of its own team where skilled sector leads were employed to guide programming. This contrasts with the DFID funded PMDP which invests heavily in technical assistance. 31 As mentioned above, Compete and PMDP have worked strategically together recognizing that their different approaches were indeed complementary in many respects. This has especially been the case in terms of technical assistance, with several interviewed firms drawing on PMDP provided technical assistance to help 29 Data source: Compete managed internal database 30 Data source: Project PMP matrix, February 25, 2018. LOP target includes Y7, whereas LOP achievement is reported to Y6 31 Interview with PMDP Senior management in West Bank and Gaza. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Ag ICT Tourism Stone and Marble Fishing Garment Total Ag ICT Tourism Stone and Marble Fishing Garment Total Ag ICT Tourism Stone and Marble Fishing Garment Total WBG WB Gaza Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 785 113 226 186 180 2801 322 290 309 1880 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 LOP Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Target Actual 36 define opportunities and needs within a sector. Such synergies can be seen in the fisheries and tourism sectors in addition food processing sub-sector where beneficiaries report high quality technical support having been received from PMDP, which helped identify and articulate needs that were subsequently sought from and provided by Compete. A de facto skills transfer component of Compete has been its support to firms to undertake international standards certification processes, which standardly include training and skills development. In the case of ICT, H&W MENA was supported by Compete for ten of their staff to achieve the highly regarded ‘Salesforce’ certification in 2012, with all ten remaining employed by the company to this day.32 More generally within the ICT sector, retention of Compete provided interns as permanent staff has been strong, based in those interns having been key in developing new markets, and thus new employment opportunities within participating firms. This can be seen within both H & W MENA and Infinite Tiers. Another notable skills transfer strategy undertaken by Compete involved the training of a team of young agronomists, who were then supported to undertake extended assignments within agricultural firms with the objective of introducing new and advanced technical approaches. Interviews with firms who received this assistance suggest its impact was uneven, with firms that were already abreast of current agronomic practice best placed to benefit from the assistance. Al Junaidy nursery is an example of a technically sophisticated company that was able to put agronomists to good use developing seedling production systems. Support was also provided to the appointment of Export Managers in strategic locations, tasked with engaging specific markets, with several still being employed to this day e.g. Canaan Fair Trade US based Export Manager, Al ‘Ard Agri-products company Malaysia based Export Manager and the Gulf based Export Manager of Fonoon; the technological company to engrave marble and granite 33 . Within the ICT sector, the project initially provided support to start ups through incubators such as Leaders and Ibdaa, but stepped back from utilization of incubators to directly engage the start-ups themselves. 34 More recently, the project has partnered with Palestine Polytechnic University (PPU) and National Instruments (an American multinational producer of automated test equipment and virtual instrumentation software) in an innovative partnership, which is providing professors at PPU exposure to National Instruments (NI) technology and integrated NI technologies in the courses they teach. The output of the relationship will be to build capacity for production of a selection of niche technology needs, such as grading, dehydrators, and stone imaging machines, which all have potential to promote competitiveness of Palestinian firms. 35 4.1.8 Relationships with other agencies/mechanisms of relevance With the exception of PMDP, other prominent actors in the relevant sectors and private sector space expressed a desire for Compete to be more visible and active in coordination mechanisms and information sharing. It is also noted that many of the firms that partner with Compete also receive support from other agencies. In some instances, partners have a long history of support from multiple donor agencies e.g. Canaan Fair Trade. Within some sub-sectors, a host of different actors are engaged and making contribution to the overall progression of that sector. For example, Oxfam and FAO are both very active in the baby cucumber sub-sector, with FAO having supported Kufr Dan Cooperative with a cold store that is an important part of that value chain’s success. Within the tourism sector, Bethlehem University, Visit Palestine and Holy Land Incoming Tour Operators Association (HLITOA) are other examples of agencies that have received support from a diversity of sources over a sustained period of time. 32 Interview with Firas Al Zaghal, H & W MENA 33 Drawn from interviews undertaken with these companies 34 Drawn from interviews undertaken with these companies 35 Drawn from interviews with staff of PPU 37 However, project PIRS as they are currently defined do not factor in the contribution of other agencies and allow Compete to claim attribution for 100% of exports generated by a supported partner, even when substantial contributions have been made by other agencies. 4.1.9 Project gender and youth performance Women’s inclusion Compete was not required by USAID to develop a gender strategy at the time of award. However, the Regional Inspector General/Cairo (RIG/Cairo) Audit Report No. 6-294-13-012-P dated May 27, 2013 recommended that the Mission direct DAI to “implement a gender strategy for the Compete Project and, based on the results, include relevant gender-sensitive indicators in its performance monitoring and evaluation plan.” In accordance with the audit recommendation and the Mission’s direction, DAI developed a comprehensive Gender Strategy for the Project that outlined guiding principles, strategies and recommendations to progress the project’s gender performance for the remaining implementation period. The strategy outlined four pillars and affirmed Compete’s commitment to gender mainstreaming and enhancing opportunities for women’s participation in the project’s activities. The four pillars are as follows: • Pillar #1: Promote the success of women in business in the Palestinian Territories, especially those operating within Compete Project sectors. • Pillar #2: Identify new entry points for women within the Project’s four value chains. • Pillar #3: Encourage private sector support for the economic participation of women through financial and technical cost share models and incentives. • Pillar #4: Expand efforts to increase the full participation of women in training and capacity building programs. For each of these pillars, the strategy identified specific actions to be undertaken in each of the targeted sectors to enhance opportunities for women in line with the strategic principles described above. Most of these actions were based on building on or continuing support to specific grants that were already in implementation at the time when the strategy was developed. The list of 22 specific measures included: • Applying a gender lens to activity identification, selection, design and delivery. • Enhancing inclusion opportunities through addressing cultural barriers related to mobility and participation in project activities. • Strengthening gender elements in the granting process, including incentivizing firms to integrate gender considerations in their grant applications. • Working with stakeholders and counterparts in the four targeted sectors/value chains to enhance participation opportunities for women, and to showcase successes. • Integrating gender in the project’s communications strategy, public awareness, and outreach, including showcasing women in business. • Mainstreaming gender in project monitoring and reporting (data gathering) Within the evaluation process, weighting is given to those activities that indicate women’s inclusion. Over the course of the project, 24.2% of all project generated jobs in West Bank have been taken by women. However, this drops to just 2.4% in Gaza, highlighting the challenge of generating employment options for women in Gaza, especially in the current economic context of 40% unemployment. 36 36 Data source: Compete managed internal database 38 Fig 11: Number of new female jobs created by sector (Y1-Y6) in West Bank and Gaza37 One approach to women’s inclusion was to enhance inclusion through addressing cultural barriers related to mobility and participation in project activities. Work in the ICT sector exhibits strengths in this respect, supporting opportunities for young women to take up jobs within the sector without needing to relocate to Ramallah. In one case, the project supported H&W MENA to establish a sub-office in Hebron, allowing the pool of very strong female ICT graduates in that area to take up jobs without the need to relocate. Similar results have been achieved by ICT companies establishing in other cities outside Ramallah. Another approach described in the gender strategy is to showcase ‘gender successes’. While there is evidence of some women focused communications across Compete’s reporting and website, these are not apparent on review of the project website. As appropriate, the project identifies some activities as ‘women-led’, described in the table below. Table 7: Compete activities designated as ‘women-led’38 Sector # of women led activities # of women led activities (WB) # of women led activities (G) USAID Investmen t ($) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Notes ICT 12 9 3 153,209 0 2 1 0 0 7 2 10 start-ups, 1 organization and 1 service provider Tourism 8 8 0 1,503,523 0 3 4 1 4 tour operators, 2 hotels, 1 organization and 1 site renovation Agri￾culture 47 36 11 568,549 0 0 2 2 17 19 7 26 grapes, 4 hanging strawberry, 1 carrots, 1 dried herbs, 1 herbs, 1 mushroom, 2 potatoes, 1 olive oil, 2 strawberry, 8 vegetables Total 67 53 14 2,225,281 - 5 3 2 21 27 9 37 Data source: Compete managed internal database Within the award document, emphasis was placed on the importance of youth employment as a project outcome, given high levels of unemployment amongst youth. 38 Data source: Compete managed internal database 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Ag ICT Tourism S&M Fishing Garment Total Ag ICT Tourism S&M Fishing Garment Total Ag ICT Tourism S&M Fishing Garment Total WBG WB Gaza Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 39 The four sampled firms that were designated as ‘women led’ coming from the ICT and Tourism sectors were indeed women led activities. However, of the four women led’ agriculture beneficiaries, the ET was not able to meet with the woman, and upon investigation, it appeared that the woman was either the owner of the land or used primarily to enhance the chances of the application of what was essentially a male run business. Youth The project has also been effective in generating youth jobs with almost half of all jobs generated through Compete being taken by youth (as described above). Within the ICT sector, Compete support to firms commonly came in the form of youth focused staffing support through internship programs that were mobilized for engagement of specific market opportunities. The three interviewed firms that participated spoke positively of this approach, highlighting that significant proportions of those interns remain in employment to this day. 4.2 Evaluation Question 2: Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable? Across all sectors, the potential of sustainability of project investment is intimately linked to the degree that market traction has been achieved by participating firms within that sector. This can either be pre-existing whereby Compete leverages off a company identified opportunity in support of consolidation and expansion, or where Compete can support achievement of market traction through targeted initiatives. Within the agriculture sector, the degree to which the required linkages within a value chain are in place and functioning is also an important aspect of sustainability. 4.2.1 Common characteristics of successful activities Agriculture Within the agriculture sector, market traction (awareness amongst buyers of production capacity, established relationships with buyers, and in some cases forward contracts) is observed within sub-sectors where robust value chains have been established that are responsive to buyers’ requirements, such as baby cucumbers, potatoes and fresh herbs. Within these value chains, participants report that Compete has been deft in targeting bottlenecks and opportunities to strengthen the value chain in ways that address buyer concerns and can be sustained moving forward. Across six interviews with participants from the baby cucumber value chain, the ET clear market demand was identified, a business case for investment in production was developed, and actions taken to support the piloting and then scaling-up of production, all the while providing support to ensuring product quantity and quality through strategic, inter-linked interventions affecting production, post-harvest and marketing. This value chain strengthening contributed to improved prices being achieved, which in turn has helped build positive momentum within the sector that has encouraged farmers to invest, resulting in the increases in quality and quantity sought by the buyer. Strengthening linkages between producers and aggregators able to provide post-harvest support and secure markets is an effective project strategy. This can be seen within the more straightforward value chain of potatoes, where the project has been strategic in its interventions. Through the simple action of irrigation refurbishment for producers in Gaza, production quantity and quality has increased, assisting aggregators to secure markets in West Bank, Israel and Jordan. Support to cold storage capacity has further aided the sub￾sector by allowing flexibility in timing of market engagement allowing price optimization. Collectively, Compete approaches have been mutually reinforcing of the symbiotic relationship between producers and aggregators. Support to access appropriate technology is also effective. Within the herb production sector, support to mechanization in the form of a high tech seeding machinery has reduced costs and risk of human error in the very delicate seeding process. This was reported by the CEO of Daraghmeh Company for Agricultural 40 Production and Medical Herb as having reduced costs related to seedling production by 40%, helping position an already successful business to further consolidate its position in the market. The advantage this has brought to this business supports global competitiveness and strengthened market engagement within this dynamic sector. Support that reduces reliance on importation of inputs is reported by beneficiaries as another important sustainability measure, since it contributes to enhanced confidence levels within production systems. Within agriculture, those firms supported by Compete to produce inputs previously needing to be purchased externally (seeds, seedlings, fish fingerlings) believe they are able to produce at a lower cost per unit than imported inputs, and see this as paving the road to a sustainable future for their enterprise and sector. At a more advanced level, Compete support to PPU to partner with NI in local production of specific machinery needs identified within the different value chains presents the opportunity of easier and more affordable access to sub-sector appropriate technology. (However, it is still unclear whether such production systems will be able to compete with imported alternatives in terms of both quality and price.) Within both the strawberry and grape value chains, there is less surety around market traction and concerns expressed by market actors regarding potential price pressure based on over-supply. In West Bank, all of the strawberry growers interviewed expressed anxiety at the risk of Gazan produce saturating the market, and the potential impact that might have on their own businesses. Compete support to the grape sector is focused heavily on improving production, and while there are plans to support processing of grapes into molasses, jams and other grape based products, it is unclear whether these approaches can absorb the growth in production being spurred by the project and hold up prices that producers already report are under pressure from production increases. A key obstacle to sustainability within the Palestinian agricultural sector is water access and quality. In the West Bank, water quality is high but access is often severely constrained due to occupation related restrictions. In Gaza, water access is less constrained, but acute concerns were raised over its quality and availability moving into the future, paralleling international concerns on this issue. Over abstraction of ground water – both in Israel and Gaza - alongside devastated water and sewage infrastructure is contributing to multi-faceted environmental collapse in Gaza. With no perennial streams and low rainfall, Gaza is almost totally dependent upon the coastal aquifer running from the West Bank and Israel for ground water. Current Israeli abstraction of water from the Coastal aquifer before it reaches Gaza is thought to be triple its recharge rate.39 This is contributing to a water supply that is heavily polluted and increasingly saline – currently well beyond WHO safe drinking standards.40 The UN has estimated that the aquifer will be unusable and irreversibly damaged by 2020.41 A similar structural/political constraint relates to affordable and reliable access to electricity. This is particularly the case in Gaza where extended blackout periods are common, forcing reliance on expensive generators and fuel. These costs affect competitiveness and undermine sustainability. In the case of fish fingerling production, it is reported by the Sohail Fish fingerling Company that just a 15 minute loss of power would be catastrophic to the production system, resulting in the death of all fingerlings under production. ICT Within ICT, Compete has strengthened the market position and potential for sustainability of some firms through the provision of staffing support directed at specific growth opportunities. More generally, interviewed firms feel that a strength of the Palestinian ICT sector is that it is increasingly recognized for the quality of its graduates and its potential to provide back office services to global companies – as is already the case with the key role that Infinite Tiers performs for the US based Home Shopping Network, where it provides the full back office for the network.. For this model to achieve traction, firms feel that the positive 39 World Bank. 2012. Stagnation or Revival? Palestinian Economic Prospects: Economic Monitoring Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, 2012 40 World Health Organization, “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan,” (Report by the Secretariat, May 11, 2012), http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_3973.pdf, 2 41 UN Country Team; Gaza in 2020 – A Liveable Place?; p.13 41 loop of very capable ICT graduates finding ‘good employment’ needs to be engaged and supported. Sector actors speak of the need of enhancing the reputation of the Palestinian ICT sector alongside ensuring jobs for graduates is seen as key to the ongoing viability of the sector. At midpoint, the project repositioned its work in the ICT sector to one more focused on technology support to its target sectors. While this makes sense in theory, the ET found it difficult to identify examples whereby this new ICT approach had supported the tech needs of other sectors, with the exception of support to PPU/NI to domestic development of key technologies required within each sector. Within ICT, Compete has strengthened the market position and potential for sustainability of some firms through the provision of staffing support directed at specific growth opportunities. More generally, interviewed firms feel that a strength of the Palestinian ICT sector is recognized for the quality of its graduates and its potential to provide back office services to global companies – as is already the case with the key role that Infinite Tiers performs for the US based Home Shopping Network, where it provides the full back office for the network. For this model to achieve traction, the positive loop of very capable ICT graduates finding ‘good employment’ with needs to be engaged. Sector actors speak of the need of enhancing the reputation of the Palestinian ICT sector alongside ensuring jobs for graduates is seen as key to the ongoing viability of the sector. At midpoint, the project repositioned its work in the ICT sector to one more focused on technology support to its target sectors. While this makes sense in theory, it is hard to determine the degree to which this approach has supported tech needs of other sectors, with the exception of support to PPU/NI to domestic development of key technologies required within each sector. Stone & Marble The reality of SMEs in the West Bank and Gaza is that their sustainability is affected to a significant extent by the degree to which Israel is willing to facilitate or disrupt their sub-sector. Within the stone and marble sector, the ongoing viability of the sector was being brought into question by the environmental impact of the slurry waste by product. Compete has worked to turn this around by working to identify value adding opportunities for the slurry by-product of the stone and marble sector, since such approaches will enjoy the advantage of being actively encouraged within both West Bank and Israel to help address the environmental impact of slurry entering the watershed. The potential of this sub-sector is also aided by the fact that construction materials being produced from the slurry which the ET observed as being innovative, conceptually contemporary and well suited to current demands of the construction sector. Even though some innovative products are now being developed, sales do not yet allow these to be brought to the scale needed to address the problem. Sustainability in this sector will be facilitated by support to both better promote the product in international markets, while also encouraging other firms into the space to allow the sector to achieve critical mass and market traction in this new product space. There is also an important need for advocacy focused on revision of building codes to ensure these products are certified as an acceptable construction material within any market that is to be targeted, if growth is to occur. Tourism Sustainability is viewed by project beneficiaries within the tourism sector through the lens of increasing the number of nights spent by visitors in West Bank hotels, and also through facilitation of ‘non-pilgrimage’ related tourism opportunities. The challenge of increasing overnight stays relates in large part to the quality of hotel stock available. Unfortunately, project efforts aimed at addressing this challenge through a strengthened hotel accreditation system were not successful, with the system not being enforced and their being no penalties in place for hotels that did not work to the agreed system.. Hoteliers report that this has reduced their incentive to achieve higher standards given they were not seeing any return in prices achieved (due to the flawed system of accreditation). 42 ‘Non-pilgrimage’ related travel was supported by the project through support to different actors such as Visit Palestine, HLITOA and boutique tour companies such as Peace by Piece Tourism. However, the unresolved hotel accreditation situation is felt right across the sector to generally retard growth in individual travel. One difficult to measure contribution to sector sustainability is site renovation. This support has certainly strengthened the sector asset base and will be available to the sector for the foreseeable future, given that the renovated sites are now completed and available to the public. Support to tourism within Gaza is arguably the greatest challenge taken on by the project. When questioned on sustainability, the Gaza Hotels Association responded, ‘guarantee us two busloads weekly of tourists from West Bank and we will have no need to ask you for any further assistance ever again!’ Fisheries Onshore fisheries represent a very rare area of economic growth in Gaza, with interviews both with participating forms and FAO clear that production is not yet be even close to meeting demand of the West Bank. 42 Sector sustainability is aided by the emerging capacity within Gaza to produce fingerlings at a price of one NIS per unit, compared to 1.8 NIS for imported varieties (which have an average death rate of 15% during transportation. This reduces business risk on multiple fronts given uncertain access and high death rates of imported fingerlings, and also that fingerlings can be produced in Gaza at lower cost per unit than imports. Garments While growth in the Gazan garment sector shows potential, manufacturers report that growth is still restricted by uncertain access to the necessary fabrics and materials which currently need to be provided to the producer by the contracted buyer. This undermines both growth potential and profitability. Those garments reliant on Gaza sales are particularly precarious, given they are accumulating receivables to what seems an unsustainable level, with one company reporting collecting less than 10% of its monthly sales and having nearly a million dollars owing in receivables. Gaza As with each of the sectors above, beneficiaries spoke of the political context and constraints on movement of people and goods posing a huge threat to sustainability, given the potential of sudden and unexpected disruption to the value chain. Support from USAID to engage diplomatic channels with a view to reducing this risk, and assuring greater levels of confidence for traders is sought generally, though particularly by traders in Gaza. It is also important to note that all sectors in Gaza commented on the impact of the extreme weakness of the local economy on their business, compounded by challenges posed by electricity prices and water quality. In relation to the former, support to install solar power was a need expressed across all sectors in Gaza. While growth in the garment sector shows potential, it is still restricted by uncertain access to the necessary fabrics and materials which currently need to be provided to the producer by the contracted buyer. This undermines both growth potential and profitability. Those garments reliant on Gaza sales are particularly precarious, given they are accumulating receivables to what seems an unsustainable level, with one company reporting collecting less than 10% of its monthly sales and having nearly a million dollars owing in receivables. As with each of the sectors above, the political context and constraints on movement of people and goods poses a huge threat to sustainability, given the potential of sudden and unexpected disruption to a value 42 43 chain. Support from USAID to engage diplomatic channels with a view to reducing this risk, and assuring greater levels of confidence for traders is sought generally, though particularly by traders in Gaza. It is also important to note that all sectors in Gaza commented on the impact of the extreme weakness of the local economy on their business, compounded by challenges posed by electricity prices and water quality. In relation to the former, support to install solar power was a need expressed across all sectors in Gaza. 4.2.2 Characteristics are sustainable without ongoing project support Clear market understanding and/or market traction appears key to sustainable interventions. While Compete has the ability to provide very strategic support to firms, it is inevitable that they will thrive or wither based on their capacity to engage markets. Considered and strategic support across a value chain is another contributor to sustainability, especially where different value chain actors have become more appreciative of the overall sector and the different roles played within the sector by different actors. In cases where beneficiaries have been effective in engaging export markets, they feel confident that they can proceed without further support from Compete – within that particular product stream. This points to Compete’s effectiveness in identifying and resolving bottlenecks, since once resolved, firms are generally able to continue to independently with their marketing and business development. One anxiety that remains across all sectors is a lack of confidence in being able to reliably move produce and people also appears to facilitate sustainability, since it allows for more robust relationships to be developed with buyers. Conversely, uncertainty and a lack of reliability in terms of moving produce to market hinders sustainability due to the nervousness that it instills in buyers, as well as suppressing prices that buyers are willing to pay. Currently, movement across borders is generally negotiated at firm level and reliant on personal relationships established with Israeli actors able to help facilitate that movement. When Compete commenced, the ICI project was under implementation with a mandate to address ‘enabling issues’ for Palestinian businesses. At the time of the award, Compete was instructed to not duplicate this effort and was structured accordingly. However, ICI closed in 2013. 4.3 Evaluation Question 3: Lessons Learned; how can successful interventions be replicated by future USAID programs? 4.3.1 Most successful interventions There are a range of key factors common to Compete success stories, and which offer insight as to how the best aspects of Compete can be replicated. Strong sector understanding appears to be critical in terms of the project being able to identify highly strategic entry and intervention points that build confidence and resilience within a sector. This analysis contributes to sophisticated understanding of market potential and opportunities, which also is key to guiding project decision-making. This foundational work is important since Compete demonstrates that when clear and accessible market opportunity exists, the private sector appears to be generally capable of managing itself forward in that market. Examples from Compete that are consistent with the above approach: • Netting to support quality and production improvements alongside reliable sorting capacity, in a context where a known demand exists (baby cucumber). • Making cold storage available to sectors known to suffer from a production glut, allowing for improved engagement of the market at times when the glut has passed (multiple agricultural sub￾sectors). 44 • Support to mechanization that can reduce production costs and risk of human error (fertigation systems and seeding machines). • Supporting aggregation opportunities for small farmers through support to cooperatives or relationships with post-harvest companies (support that directly benefits small farmers also ensures a social return). • Support realistic niche opportunities for export engagement through: o youth focused staffing support that targets specific contract opportunities (ICT), o partnering innovative and market savvy ideas towards market traction (stone and marble), o promotion of unique brands (support Protected Geographic Identification Designation for Gaza strawberries), o support initiatives that reduce reliance on importation of inputs, enhancing investor confidence in related sub-sectors, o support participation in targeted promotional activities, such as trade shows, o support appointment of Export Managers to closely engage potential markets where there is evidence of significant market opportunity, • Strategy for addressing macro issues related to mobility and freedom of movement of producers and produce, both between West Bank and Gaza, and beyond. This is particularly the case in Gaza where producers who have capacity to move goods beyond Gaza are one of the very few glimmers of hope in the current context of the Gazan economy. • Purposeful certification with the objective of opening door to likely market opportunities. • Support to procurement, notably in Gaza, where USAID procurement and delivery can reduce costs to firms by a significant margin. 4.3.2 Capacity or local mechanisms to facilitate replication The support structure available to private sector development in West Bank and Gaza is widely regarded across the project landscape as weak for many and complex reasons, mostly related to the compromised context of the private sector to freely operate within West Bank and Gaza, and also the limited capacity of government to play a role given its own resource constraints. Over the course of implementation, Compete has pulled back from supporting sector entities that might be capable of carrying lessons learned and best practice forward, in favour of working more directly at firm and sub-sector levels. This has assisted many firms to better understand their potential vis a vis the market. However, it remains to be seen whether or not firms will be able to replicate project supported approaches without the grants that have often been key to overcoming bottlenecks. On the other hand, key agencies on the Palestinian export landscape, such as Paltrade, have the mandate and capacity to carry trade promotion independent of project based assistance. However, Paltrade report that Compete engagement receded over the course of implementation 4.4 Evaluation Question 4: Were there any unintended project outcomes (positive or negative)? The following were identified during the course of the evaluation as unintended outcomes of the project: • (Positive) Support to agricultural diversification and entry to export markets is helping prop up prices of other commonly produced commodities such as tomatoes. • (Negative) Project support to address hotel classification weaknesses failed, with a perception across the sector that such is the disillusionment with the accreditation process and outcome, that it will be difficult to re-engage many stakeholders. • (Negative) Concerns have been raised that project support to the root vegetable sector is distorting the market, resulting in a tight cartel of larger producers who are marginalizing smaller producers, including monopolization of water resources. 45 • (Negative) The positive of US support through the Kerry Initiative to open up a 20,000 dunum parcel of Area C for potato production, might have negatively affected existing producers up stream who have seen their water access reduced. • Shift to FLAP contributed to perception that Compete was less interested in understanding a sector, and more focused on numbers and transactions. 4.5 Evaluation Question 5: How did the project’s implementation approach and management, (including selection criteria and processes), influence the achievement of results? Compete’s approach and management across its different sectors is understandably diverse and varied, as the project works to find the best fit for the unique challenges and opportunities inherent to different levels within each sub-sector. However, even within sub-sectors there is variance in management approach and depth of engagement of partner entities. Observation of the ET is that this relates to a range of factors, including: • the energy and dynamism that the partner brings to the relationship at start-up, including the information they choose to provide and the clarity of their vision for support; • the baseline status of the sub-sector and its firm, with some sub-sectors already well advanced in their thinking and others very much starting from square one; • the capacity of Compete staff to find time and opportunities to sufficiently understand the context of an applicant; • the capacity of aggregators, cooperatives, business associations etc. to represent and articulate sector context and needs; • the timing of the intervention given the mid-point shift in project approach from one that was more focused on ‘medium’ enterprises to one more open to inclusion of ‘smaller’ firms, particularly farmers. Given this diversity, it is not surprising that feedback on Compete management is mixed and often contradictory. While many interviewed spoke of smooth processes and responsiveness, others (even within the same sub-sector) spoke of delays and a lack of communication. Generally speaking, more positive feedback came from those in the agriculture sector who appreciated project willingness to address bottlenecks, co-finance procurement of assets and valued the availability of Compete staff to support them as required in value chain strengthening. More negative feedback was apparent within the ICT and Tourism sectors, with the most common complaint being a lack of clarity around the project strategy and poor communication related to the project’s shift in direction in these sectors. Within ICT, there was frustration at a perceived lack of dialogue related to Compete’s strategic shift given a widespread belief that the existing approach was achieving traction and would deliver good results if that same direction had been sustained. As mentioned above, during the first three years of operation, Compete utilized the Competitiveness Impacts of Business Environment Reforms (CIBER) methodology for some sector analysis. While these were of a high quality, they were only applied to a small number of sectors, and were not continued with as a market analysis methodology. Beyond CIBER, market assessments were rarely documented with any thoroughness beyond the inclusion of some headline information provided as part of the grant evaluation process. Throughout implementation, the project operated on a first in, first served basis following release of funding opportunities – which the project CoP justifies based on the need for a transparent, indisputable process of beneficiary selection that could not be challenged. The scale of these ‘grant opportunities’ was based in preliminary assessment by Compete of the demand expected from the market for specific opportunities. Understandably, competitiveness for grants was greatest in agricultural sub-sectors given the number of Palestinians active in agriculture – either as their primary or secondary source of income. While this first in 46 first served approach is reported by the project as efficient and transparent, the ET heard some complaints that opportunities were monopolized by those closer to the contact points that Compete had engaged in their preliminary assessment. Being computer based, the application system proved challenging for the cohort of farmers less familiar with information technology. In some cases, the person within a community who was most computer literate was asked to submit applications on others’ behalf, which slowed down their application and led to some missing out, which in turn caused tension within that community. While the project worked to the principle of minimum 50% cost sharing, some flexibility was applied when dealing with small scale farming households who were able to claim in-kind contributions as their cost sharing contribution, such as previously purchased assets relevant to that value chain, thus assisting poorer farmers to participate in the project. In Gaza, the co-contribution expectation was appropriately lower at 30%, in recognition of the current economic malaise being experienced in Gaza. Documentation related to selection processes standardly included an application that is researched by Compete and then put before an evaluation panel for assessment. Vetting is another aspect of the process. Based on document review, it is the assessment of the ET that introduction of the FLAP brought far greater rigour to administration processes and the paper trail available to support decision making and compliance. This was an important adjustment, since based on firm folders provided to the ET, documentation supporting decision-making within the earlier phase of the project was limited and not particularly informative in terms of clearly justifying the why and what of the investment. This is especially notable since this was when many of the project’s larger grants were made. Project procurement is another aspect of the project that received mixed feedback from project beneficiaries. Positive feedback included appreciation for Compete support in accessing the agreed purchases, including support to clear and deliver such purchases through Israeli customs and other procedures. In several instances, especially in relation to getting materials into Gaza, the cost to the firm was significantly reduced by Compete support to procurement. Less positive procurement feedback related to inflexibility in terms of firms not being able to receive the specific specifications they sought, even when at times these would have been cheaper than what Compete delivered. Compete commencement in Gaza in Year Five was based on a rapid assessment43 undertaken in mid 2015 that identified potential sectors for project engagement. Agriculture (vegetables, strawberries, carnations and fresh herbs), ICT, fisheries, garments, tourism and furniture were agreed as target sectors, with furniture soon needing to be dropped due to tightened dual use restrictions rendering the sector too difficult to engage effectively. The project is managed by a small Gaza based team which is further supported by the Ramallah based technical leads. Given that project commencement in Gaza occurred just a year after the devastating 2014 conflict in Gaza, the project has proven highly effective in identifying actors within its various value chains that were export ready, as defined by their capacity to move produce to market from Gaza. Through these partnerships, Compete has demonstrated the capacity to do good business in Gaza when companies have confidence and relationships that allow their product to exit Gaza as required. Interestingly, there is a widely held perspective that Compete was more analytical and sector focused in the earlier stages of the project. This perspective was particularly true amongst stakeholders whose area of interest reduced in priority during the later stages of the project. Both incubators and larger companies within ICT, business associations and the tourism sector in general felt that a ‘bigger picture’ perspective was apparent pre-FLAP, and that the FLAP focus on firm level denied opportunities for ‘sector enablers’. Being the largest project of its kind in the Palestinian Territories, there is strong interest from the broader development community in its implementation and approach, including a desire to cooperate and complement as possible. As mentioned, this perspective was stated by each and every government department, donor or NGO engaged by the ET. Being a US funded project, the broader sector also looks to Compete (in partnership with USAID) for 43 Compete - Gaza Summary Visit Report; August 4 2015 47 leadership in terms of addressing some of the politically inspired constraints that thwart competitiveness within the Palestinian economy. Given these two perspectives, there is a widely held desire that the project be more active in coordination mechanisms and information sharing than it seems to be. This perspective was held by government, other donors and NGOs. 5. Conclusions Since commencing in 2012, the Compete project has made a very important contribution to the Palestinian economy, being an important catalyst for private sector engagement of export markets across key sectors. As the largest project of its kind, the project has significant profile right across the Palestinian economy, and is valued by the private sector for its capacity to respond to sector development needs, cost share, pilot and scale-up innovation, advise and help facilitate linkages with export markets and buyers. 5.1 Effectiveness - To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework) Determining the overall effectiveness of the project strategy is complex given Compete’s breadth and depth, as well as considerable evolutions of the project approach over the course of implementation, and most notably at its mid-point when a new CoP was appointed and a new firm level assistance approach introduced. While flexibility and adaptability were both critically important given the overall context, a clear description within a ToC of fundamental principles and core approaches would have helped address the project’s areas of weakness. Across its key result areas of increased revenues, levels of investment, value adding and employment, the ET observed considerable success emanating from Compete investments. For many companies, the positive impact of Compete support continues to be enjoyed as momentum from getting a toe hold in export markets continues to be progressed. Two common themes appear to cut across those interventions where Compete is seen to be most effective. Firstly, supported companies that had a clear and nuanced pre-existing understanding of their particular export market landscape were better equipped to seek finely tuned and targeted assistance from Compete, and have mostly been able to achieve export traction. Secondly, for those sectors where export clarity was less apparent, Compete has been able to support export market traction through the provision of strategic support at multiple points of the market system – as can be seen in the baby cucumber value chain, where Compete provided clever, targeted support to each of production, aggregation, marketing and even technology. Not insignificantly, this market system intervention has fostered a sense of shared benefit across the sector and recognition of the contribution needed from each market actor for success to follow. This points to a key conclusion of the evaluation that strategic investments that address sub-sector production and marketing bottlenecks have the capacity of energizing a sector, especially when that investment is valued by multiple actors within the value chain. In such circumstances, the identification of synergies and mutual benefit amongst different value chain actors can contribute to the ‘whole’ being greater than the sum of the various parts of the project’s investment parts, through quality improvements and value adding. It is also noted that level of investment does not equate to effectiveness, with more lightly funded sub￾sectors such as baby-cucumber and potatoes demonstrating far greater impact and likelihood of sustainable market traction than other sub-sectors that received higher levels of funding. The project is to be commended for its ability to calibrate its approach to the different needs that come with different investment levels, with little variance in terms of levels of satisfaction with Compete performance according to level of grant. 48 The common theme to firms that appear to have not benefited so greatly from Compete support is that assistance occurred in a context where clarity around market need and approach to achieving market traction was less apparent. Common to such circumstances is the project not being active at multiple points on the value chain, or there being limited shared understanding across the value chain of how different project interventions relate to each other. The diagnosis Compete undertook to guide its sub-sector and value chain development support did not clearly: (i) identify system-level constraints (root causes) related to promotion of an enabling environment and strengthened business support services, (ii) identify incentives and capacities of market players associated with these constraints, (iii) generate intelligence and insights that could be used to influence market actors during intervention, and (iv) generate information that could be used to strengthen indicators and performance measurement. Limitations in the analysis underpinning Compete’s interventions in several of the assessed value chains and the lack of clearly articulated vision statements and theories of change for sub-sector/value chain development also appears to have affected strategic decision-making processes relating to when to exit a sector or scale-down activities. Despite Compete’s commitment to advancing competitiveness through a Market Systems approach, Compete fell short of truly transforming the project to a market systems approach. This relates in large part to the project not systematically demonstrating (and documenting) clear analysis and understanding of how market systems within its targeted sub-sectors work - or how systems fail to serve the least advantaged producers and market actors, which is the primary target group of programs following market systems approaches - prior to intervening in them. Introduction of the FLAP brought more transparency to the technical assistance and beneficiary firms selection process, and led the approach to be more heavily focused on advancing competitiveness at the firm-level (rather than, more holistically, at the sub-sector and value chain levels as suggested by a Market Systems approach) than before FLAP also provided the space for Compete to address key market failures at the firm level and introduce pilot interventions, which in certain value-chains enabled the project to identify scalability opportunities that led to wide-scale, inclusive sub-sector development. The shift to the FLAP is also a significant aspect in the steep rise in beneficiary numbers, especially within agriculture, seen in the later years of the project, since it opens the door to large numbers of smaller grants. The FLAP approach can marry well with component B given it has better capacity to support smaller value chain actors, linking them to aggregators who in turn link to markets. 5.1.1 Levels of investment and revenues The opportunity of Compete co-contribution incentivized companies to invest in growing their business and tapping emerging market opportunities, since it reduced the risk associated with piloting innovation or chasing new markets. In several cases these project investments also acted as incentives to firms to integrate small-scale producers into export and high-value market channels. Compete’s provision of targeted support to address strategic sector bottlenecks, particularly those that come at high cost, appears to have been catalytic in launching some firms and sub-sectors towards new markets. Despite Compete facilitating firms to invest, political and market access concerns still act as a major inhibitor to investment. It therefore seems safe to assume that any support that can be provided by Compete or USAID to resolve constraints to movement of people and goods from Gaza would be a positive investment in the Gazan economy. 5.1.2 New markets accessed/quality and reliability of relationships with external buyers 49 The project has been influential in supporting the number of new market engagement by partners, and has often facilitated improvements in the relationship through supporting quality assurance and taking on an intermediary role when necessary between producers and client. Within agriculture, the project has had some success supporting aggregation of small producer product as a way of helping aggregators chase larger contracts, which in turn connects them with larger and more professional and reliable value chain actors. Investment in promoting quality and quality assurance has often strengthened the relationship between producer and aggregator, as well as the ability of a sector to give confidence to buyers. 5.1.3 Support to Business Associations and Support Organizations Within those sectors and sub-sectors where it is clear that Compete has a deep and intimate understanding of the dynamics that drive the value chain and multiple touch points within it, some agriculture sector cooperatives, post-harvest entities and aggregators have all been supported to good effect within different value chains. In the most successful examples, Compete support has helped foster recognition of mutual reliance and benefit across the market system. Agriculture is the one sector where strong support has been maintained to component B type initiatives, where it is clear the project has played a key role in terms of skills transfer and capacity building (cooperatives) and aggregation and market engagement (post harvest actors). As described already, this breadth of touch points within a sub-sector appears to be a key indicator of success and satisfaction with Compete performance. Compete is best positioned to engage market systems that are tangible and where the required interventions and results can be clearly defined and affected. An aspect of the project approach that has had both positive and negative consequences has been the shift away from component B type support over the course of the project. While this has sharpened project focus at firm level, and strengthened capacity for firm self-sufficiency, the broader enabling environment for the project continues to be of acute importance. While there are advantages in terms of efficiency to the more direct relationship now enjoyed between Compete and firms under the FLAP, there are various critical roles to be played by business associations. Sector level promotion, leadership and coordination are in many respects even more important than other contexts given the need for exporters to address anxieties of would be buyers related to the additional complexities of doing business in the Palestinian Territories. However, Compete also offers a unique opportunity through which business associations and support organizations can be supported and strengthened in their work, contributing to down stream sustainability and capacity for targeted sectors. 5.1.4 Domestic market share Despite the project focus on export markets, one of its achievements has been to give producers the option of engaging the best market, which in some cases is the domestic market. Growth in capacity to produce key inputs within the West Bank and Gaza is a vital aspect of domestic market share. 5.1.5 Quality and value adding Assessing the project approach to quality enhancement and value adding is complex, since it is often not an explicit approach, but more one that is a by-product of firms engaging export markets where enhanced quality is demanded, resulting in improved prices being received. 50 In some sectors, the approach to value adding has been explicit, notably stone and marble where the two main strands to the approach are both aimed at supporting the sector towards greater value adding. While this has been effective in developing the higher value ‘product’, in both cases market traction for these new markets is currently limited and in need of targeted support. 5.1.6 Project generated employment The project has been effective in creating jobs, especially in agriculture, with the majority of those assumed to be seasonal workers. However, it is difficult to analyze the project’s jobs statistics with any rigour given limited capacity to analyze employment data through lens such as full or part time; skilled or unskilled; and remuneration rate. This data gap is frustrating since it denies the project an important learning opportunity in relation to its impact on employment, and women and youth employment in particular. 5.1.7 Approach to skills transfer and workforce development Compete’s approach to skills transfer recognizes that it is companies themselves that are best placed to identify and direct required capacity development. While this has merit, it also carries some risk since it assumes that companies sufficiently know their business and understand their needs, and that they have a clear understanding of best practice and current trends within a sector. 5.1.8 Relationships with other agencies/mechanisms of relevance A key conclusion of the evaluation is that Compete has not been a particularly active member of its community. More active participation in coordination mechanisms is not only good ‘citizenship’, it also opens the door to complementary relationships. Such relationships offer particular potential for a project such as Compete which is heavy on ‘hardware’ capacity (provision of materials) but limited in terms of ‘software’ (the capacity to provide people on the ground to support skills development, inclusion or troubleshoot) – which is the opposite situation for many partners, especially NGOs who often can contribute staff and technical support, but cannot address material deficiencies. 5.1.9 Project gender and youth performance Compete’s gender performance has been limited in terms of the higher-level outcomes aspired to within the gender strategy pillars for inclusion, promotion and empowerment of women within the Palestinian private sector. The lack of detailed analysis of the gender dynamics within the targeted value chains/sub-sectors, combined with Compete’s lack of sub-denies the project the opportunity of utilizing a market systems analysis process to inform broader landscape understanding of gender dynamics. 5.2 Sustainability - Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable? Across all sectors engaged by the project, the potential of sustainability of project investment is intimately linked to the degree that market traction has been achieved by participating firms within that sector. While business associations and support organizations could and should factor in to sustainability considerations, a conundrum faced by Compete is that firms often have only limited confidence in the capacity of their relevant business association, and question the worth of the project engaging them, yet at the same time bemoan the absence of support and enabling services available to them. A macro obstacle to sustainability within the Palestinian agricultural sector is water access and quality. In the West Bank, water quality is high but access is often severely constrained due to occupation related restrictions. In Gaza, water access is less constrained, but water quality issues are acute. 51 5.2.1 Common characteristics of successful activities Compete appears to be most successful when it intervenes at multiple points along a value chain in a way that targets bottlenecks and specific opportunities that help resolve buyer concerns. Typically, such interventions involve support that helps enhance production and quality (contributing to value add potential in the process), while also engaging and supporting aggregators to absorb production increases and better engage markets. This is particularly the case in agriculture where project support to post harvest service provision has often been the strategic bottleneck needing to be addressed, giving producers the confidence to expand production given the incentive of better prices being available with better post harvest facilities in place. Also within agriculture, support that reduces reliance on importation of inputs enhances confidence within the value chain, and is therefore another important sustainability measure. Confidence within a firm or value chain that key people and/or produce can freely cross borders is also common to successful activities. Currently, this outcome is generally negotiated at firm level and reliant on personal relationships established with Israeli actors able to help facilitate that movement. While this system can work well for individual firms, there remains a need for there to be clarity of decision-making and criteria around such processes. 5.3 Replicability - How can successful interventions (identified as part of Question 1) be replicated by future USAID programs? Replication is best served by a foundation that ensures sophisticated and nuanced understanding at entry point of the potential of sectors under consideration, since this contributes to the project being well positioned to identify bottlenecks and strategic interventions to overcome them. It also assists identification of synergies and mutual benefit where the ‘investment whole’ can be greater than the sum of its parts. Such an approach also provides an efficiency dividend, since it can avoid unnecessary interventions. Opportunities for replication will be further enhanced if USAID supported projects support capacity development of key agencies on the Palestinian export landscape that have the mandate and capacity to carry trade promotion independent of project based assistance. 5.4 Unintended project outcomes Unintended outcomes of the project mostly relate to limitations in market system understanding, and the subsequent impact of project interventions on the overall market system. It is likely that a more robust market system analysis would have alerted the project to potential negative impacts of different project interventions. 5.5 Implementation approach and management Compete needs to be acknowledged for the breadth of its reach and its ability in the most part to astutely tailor support to the context of its many different sub-sectors and sub-sector actors, each of which faces its own unique challenges and opportunities. Project identification and start up in Gaza also deserves acknowledgment for being well conceived and swift in its response, allowing for a lot to be achieved within a relatively short time. More generally, the project has identified sub-sectors and a cohort of partners within Gaza who all have the capacity to either directly or indirectly get their produce out of Gaza. This is a very important lesson learned and points to the importance of addressing macro issues related to movement of people and goods, since those businesses that do enjoy that privilege demonstrate that they are very capable of being competitive even within the myriad constraints that currently affect Gaza. 52 Efforts in the agriculture sector deserve particular mention given they touch virtually every agricultural value chain of importance. Success in value chains such as baby cucumber highlights the potential of Compete when it has sophisticated understanding, is deeply engaged and active across multiple points of a value chain. These successes provide a road map for sector engagement, and beg the question of whether the project spread itself too thin by being involved across 23 agriculture value chains. Deeper initial analysis leading to deeper engagement of fewer sub-sectors might well have yielded better results. It is also noted that agriculture remained a project priority throughout, whereas approaches to ICT and Tourism significantly changed course during implementation. While the rationale for these changes appears sound, it equally appears that these changes were not clearly communicated or justified to those who felt they had contributed a lot to helping Compete establish a strategy within those sectors. While the project monitoring and evaluation approach is expansive, it is not sufficiently tailored to measurement of the results that the project is working towards. This is particularly true of more qualitative results such as ‘reliability and dependability’ of relationships; ‘increase in ‘improved’ products; or the ‘improved image’ of Palestinian goods. Even within the more quantitative result areas, data gathering has been inconsistently collated and often incompatible with the baseline data that had been assembled. PIRS in related to attribution of increase in exports, sales and employment are generous and run the risk of inflating results beyond what should be genuinely attributed to Compete. One aspect of this is a lack of recognition of the contribution being made to firms by other stakeholders and donors. Overall, the process of PIRS review/update appears to have not paid sufficient attention to how such changes affect the evaluability of the project, and was overly focused on addressing weaknesses identified in indicator measurement year-on-year. Ideally, more attention would have been paid to ensuring the M&E system was capable of generating data that enables more holistic and revealing monitoring and evaluation of the project over its entire lifetime Overall, it is the ET’s perspective that an opportunity was missed with the way M&E was conducted over the life of the project, by not being sufficiently focused on ‘monitoring for learning’, as opposed to monitoring to aid reporting. In depth understanding and documentation of successes and failures would be a great asset as USAID moves towards funding a similarly focused program. Clear understanding of issues related to wastewater use; reasons underpinning the failure of the Gaza greenhouse strawberry intervention; unpacking of the concept of ‘better jobs’; or drilling down in to the complexity of issues related to ‘women led’ businesses are examples of activities worthy of documented research. 6. Recommendations This section outlines recommendations relating to future programming in support of competitiveness in the Palestinian Territories. Underpinning all that follows is the headline recommendation that USAID undertake further programming to support and progress competitiveness of the Palestinian economy through interventions in both West Bank and Gaza. Results achieved through Compete demonstrate that strategic and considered support to sectors and businesses can be catalytic in strengthening export readiness, building investor confidence and addressing bottlenecks, resulting in a strengthened Palestinian economy and growth in employment opportunities. Recommendation One Any future competitiveness project should either fully adopt a market systems development approach, or at least include a component for market systems development approaches to be applied when specific sub￾sectors are assessed as export ready, and where it is expected that multiple actors within that value chain will be engaged. 53 Recommendation Two Ensure that the selection of value chains is done on the basis of clear selection criteria, including the participation of market actors and government stakeholders in the selection process. Typical criteria for value chain selection within a market systems approach include: • Market prospects: in domestic and export markets. • Competitiveness: commodities with the most potential for growth. • Meeting development objectives: commodities with the most potential for meeting program objectives. • Feasibility: commodities the project can work with and see results (e.g., value chain actors’ buy-in, likelihood of achieving results within the program’s timeframe). Recommendation Three When a sub-sector is identified as export ready and presents an opportunity for multi-faceted engagement, initial investment should be made to document proposed strategy through analysis underpinning the investment and articulation of vision statements and theories of change for sub-sector/value chain development. This analysis should include: • system-level constraints (root causes) affecting promotion of an enabling environment and strengthened business support services; • incentives and capacities of market players associated with these constraints; • sector specific intelligence and insights that could be used to influence market actors during intervention, and; • information to be used as a sub-sector baseline from which strong qualitative and quantitative indicators and performance measurement can be drawn. Recommendation Four Based on the above, results for the main targets of Project assistance should be clearly differentiated to reflect the different realities of micro, small, and medium enterprises, large anchor firms, and BSOs. Confidence within a value chain that secure markets exist and that they can be reliably accessed is key to bringing focus and clarity as to how best a sub-sector can be supported. Compete has demonstrated important value add in terms of supporting firms in their market engagement, in terms of strategic advice, direct engagement of buyers, and efforts to address structural constraints (often with support of USAID). Recommendation Five The project should be structured in such a way that it is able to provide pro-active, context specific support at sub-sector and firm levels to enhance market engagement and achieve market traction. Such support should include efforts to address, or raise with relevant bodies, structural constraints that inhibit competitiveness of a sub-sector. Central to the logic of Compete was the principle that the business environment requires a strong enabling landscape to thrive, and for that to develop, there is a need to strengthen business associations and support organizations. The importance of this supportive environment was especially highlighted in the agriculture sector where aggregators and other post-harvest entities were key in helping secure market traction within some of the most successful sub-sectors. Recommendation Six Any future project should maintain capacity to support strengthening of support organizations. While this recommendation carries relevance across all sectors, particular focus should be placed on those capable of supporting aggregation and value adding within the agriculture sector as a means of supporting the many small Palestinian farmers who historically have been ‘price-takers’. An observation of the ET was that each of the 41 different sub-sectors that Compete engaged had a story to tell, and lessons to impart – not to mention the interactions between sub-sectors. However, much of the extraordinary amount of knowledge generated was never captured in a form that could be shared or carried 54 forward. This relates to the project’s M&E approach being focused on compliance and reporting than on learning and knowledge management. While compliance and reporting are and will always be critically important needs, there is an opportunity for such approaches to be augmented to allow for the project’s lessons learned to be clearly captured, analyzed and made available to the broader sector interested in private sector development. Recommendation Seven Place greater focus on knowledge management and lessons learned, recognizing the opportunities and efficiencies inherent in clearly understanding what has and hasn’t worked, and why. This could include commissioning of key research to better understand competitiveness and/or identify strategies for addressing weaknesses that undermine competitiveness. Even within the project monitoring that was done, there was a disconnect between the data gathered and the results framework agreed with USAID. There was also inconsistency in the way that data was gathered and how indicator measurement was managed. Furthermore, the agreed PIRS for the project lack rigour and texture, and most likely over state project achievements given they allow attribution to Compete of results that were clearly affected by other factors. Collectively, this overall context has made difficult the learning focus suggested above. Recommendation Eight Project M&E systems need to be strengthened to better align with intended results, and to better allow for monitoring of progress against baseline. Being the largest project of its kind in the West Bank and Gaza, there is great interest across government and the broader development sector in Compete plans, results and learning. However, almost without exception, these stakeholders expressed frustration at the lack of information available from Compete, and their lack of visibility in the various coordination mechanisms. Recommendation Nine There is an urgent need to improve project communications in general, and with government in particular. While government is understanding of the implementing modality, they feel they have a right to receive regular updates on the project, lessons learned, and future directions. They also seek project alignment with their own strategic plans. Compete has capacity and resources that the broader development sector does not, and vice versa. These different permutations of resources and skills offer the potential for complementarity in programming that helps best address sector and firm level needs. Already, there is strong complementarity between Compete and the DFID funded PMDP. Recommendation Ten Project participation in coordination mechanisms should be more actively undertaken as a means of progressing learning in relation to competitiveness, while also facilitating opportunities to identify potential programming synergies. A related recommendation is for USAID to facilitate periodic coordination and planning meetings with economic growth and market development programs, and assume a leadership role facilitating the collaboration of its programs with other programs. Areas of interest to the broader sector that Compete could benefit from relates to youth and women’s empowerment and strategies for promoting their meaningful participation and leadership in the economy. While Compete developed a gender strategy, there was only limited evidence of activities where women were genuinely leading an initiative. Recommendation Eleven 55 A gender advisor should be appointed to specifically manage women led programming, including research and provision of support to sector leads to assist them in ensuring gendered approaches and gender sensitivity in their own value chain approaches. The Gender Advisor would also provide support to ensuring M&E approaches adequately address gender issues and learning. Agriculture as a headline sector covers off multiple sub-sectors, each with different potential for growth, value adding and export traction. Compete demonstrates that granular understanding of a sub-sector market system allows for efficient and strategic investment in that sub-sector, and that strengthening relationships between producers and aggregators offers potential for the greatest number to benefit. Recommendation Twelve Any follow-on project should use the approach described in recommendations one and two to clearly identify and understand agricultural sub-sectors with potential for growth, and to identify opportunities within the market place to be leveraged. While there is a general opportunity to support further development and consolidation of the West Bank and Gaza as providers of high quality ICT support, there is a more contained and specific opportunity to build an ICT strategy that focuses on an internship system that supports companies to take on young graduates in pursuit of specific business opportunities. Recommendation Thirteen Consider options for promoting growth and competitiveness of the Palestinian ICT sector through an approach that focuses on facilitating youth into the ICT workforce through an internship support program that supports companies in pursuit of specific business opportunities. Compete was integral to supporting identification and consolidation of an exciting opportunity within the stone and marble value chain, based in application of the waste slurry by product of quarrying to production of an innovative lightweight building material with strong thermal properties. While it has been proven that production of these materials is relatively straightforward, a challenge remains in raising awareness of the product to achieve market traction. With traction, there is enormous growth potential for the production system, especially since such an industry will be welcomed and encouraged by Israel given it offers a potential solution to the environmental damage being caused by slurry in West Bank and Israel watersheds. Recommendation Fourteen Look at options for supporting development and rapid expansion of slurry based construction materials, including efforts to penetrate key markets by both marketing and also seeking accreditation of materials within different building codes. The challenges faced by the Palestinian tourism sector are broad and complex. Compete efforts in this sector suffered from being spread too thin. Any future engagement of the tourism sector needs to be either scaled up to ensure the human and financial resources necessary to achieve impact, or focused on strengthening of a specific sub-sector to promote its growth and competitiveness. Recommendation Fifteen Focus support to development of individual or small group, non-pilgrimage tourism, aimed at developing and promoting niche tourism opportunities related to historical, cultural and/or ‘political’ tourism, focusing on tourism products that encourage visitors to ‘Visit Palestine’. While it is understood that these issues are extremely complex and politically sensitive issues, there is a variety of constraints that fundamentally undermine the competitiveness of the Palestinian economy. More generally, there is an urgent need for greater transparency and reliability in terms of the processes that dictate decision-making in relation to the movement of people and goods needing to enter. This need is particularly acute in Gaza, where uncertainty and restrictions on the movement of traders needing to access 56 West Bank or beyond for business, is quite literally preventing deals from being done that would strengthen the Gazan economy and employ Gazan people. Recommendation Sixteen The project, with support from USAID (and the broader development sector), needs to help facilitate agreement and clear processes that allow traders with bona fide business reasons to travel outside Gaza as required. In the case of Gaza, all exports must enter Israel before they reach their final destination, even if that final destination is outside Israel. Border procedures and clearance are time consuming and expensive, and a drag on competitiveness. More generally, a clear approach needs to be in place through which on the ground issues related to an enabling environment for the Palestinian economy can be systematically brought to the attention of the US Mission, to inform advocacy development. Recommendation Seventeen The project, with support from USAID, should pursue strategic advocacy aimed at opening a faster track export only channel at the Karem Shalom border crossing between Gaza and Israel for goods that have a final destination beyond Israel. 57 Annexes 58 Annex (A)- Evaluation Scope of Work and Design I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION This purpose of this performance evaluation is to assist USAID/West Bank Gaza (USAID/WBG) in assessing the approach and performance of the Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness (Compete) project against its main objectives in terms of results (outcomes) and sustainability. The evaluation will provide lessons learned and recommendations for future activities the USAID/WBG Economic Growth and Infrastructure team is considering in this sector.44 The primary audience for this evaluation will be the USAID/WBG office and specifically the Economic Growth and Infrastructure office as they evaluate potential follow-on proposals or future activities in this sector.45 Secondary audiences would be other stakeholders in this sector and potentially USAID on a more global level. II. SUMMARY INFORMATION Activity/Project Name Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project (Compete) Implementer Development Alternatives International (DAI) Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-294-C-12-00001 Total Estimated Ceiling (TEC) of the Evaluated Project/Activity $62,868,718 (taken from Compete presentation to USAID) Life of Project/Activity Jan 2012 – October 2018 Active Geographic Regions West Bank and Gaza Strip Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO 2: Reduced Constraints to Private Sector-Led Economic Growth IR 2.1: Reduced barriers to trade and improved movement and access for people and goods IR 2.2: Increased competitiveness of targeted sectors IR 2.3: Improved business and investment enabling environment IR 2.4: Improved availability and lower cost of energy, water, and transport resources USAID Office USAID West Bank and Gaza office III. BACKGROUND A. Description of the Project The United States Agency for International Development in West Bank and Gaza (USAID/WBG) recognizes the importance of a prosperous private sector, economically integrated within the global economy, to the establishment of a sovereign, independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state. While some larger Palestinian firms have established themselves in the global market place, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which employ the vast majority of Palestinians and the potential to employ many more, have found it more difficult to grow their businesses and engage external markets. 44 The evaluation will cover all activities implemented since inception of the project in 2012, but focus heavily on post 2015 implementation. 45 The evaluation will not be completed in time to influence PAD development for the follow-on activity 59 Implemented by DAI, Compete was commenced in 2012 and will conclude October 2018. The project has the goal of strengthening competitiveness and export potential of key sectors essential to the future prosperity of the Palestinian economy. This is being achieved through efforts aimed at facilitating rapid expansion in sectors of the Palestinian economy that show the most potential for employment and export growth. Approaches include the provision of grants and technical assistance to companies and expertise on how to maximize the value of their products with a view to partnering with firms towards new products and approaches that better respond to market opportunities. In order to maintain focus and ensure holistic value chain development, the project focuses in on selected sectors regarded as having the best potential for market development. In West Bank, the project focuses on the agribusiness, tourism, information and communications technologies, and the stone and marble sector. In Gaza, the project places primary focus on agribusiness, information and communications technologies, and fishing, with secondary focus placed on tourism, furniture and textile/garments. To facilitate sector expansion, companies are supported with technical assistance and expertise to maximize the value of their products. The project also aims to connect smaller businesses with larger producers and exporters that have direct and more efficient access to markets. Through training and increasing the flow of information, products, and technology throughout target sectors, the project aims to empower SMEs to better perceive and respond to opportunities as they arise. B. Results Frameworks The primary focus of the Compete Project is to improve market access for small- and medium-sized Palestinian enterprises, as well as to increase competitiveness and market participation for firms through improved product design, quality, packaging, and efficient production. The Project also aims to improve access to services through the development of local business associations and business service providers. To monitor performance, the project has developed results frameworks that outline results and priorities for work in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. These are used as a planning, communications, and management tool, providing a foundation for work planning and performance monitoring. This conveys the development hypothesis implicit in the program’s goal and objectives, as well as the cause-effect relationships among key results areas, program intermediate results, and program objectives. 60 Figure 3: Results Framework - West Bank Figure 4: Results Framework – Gaza Strip 61 C. Summary of Project to be evaluated The project approach involves two distinct components, namely; • Component A focuses on assisting Palestinian firms to better compete on international markets through supporting innovation, skills training, and by linking them to sustainable, high value distribution channels. • Component B focuses on developing Palestinian service providers and business support organizations to foster a market friendly environment and improve the likelihood of sustainable results in the Palestinian economy. Five strategic priorities guide project implementation: 1. Developing workforce skills and introducing new technologies to generate employment. 2. Strengthening high value-added products, services, and technologies to facilitate growth. 3. Enhancing access to markets, both locally and internationally, to maximize value and profit. 4. Supporting enablers and service providers to address sectorial impediments. 5. Providing access to finance and investment to build sustainable business development. Collectively, these approaches are expected to consolidate targeted sectors resulting in increases in exports and investments, with increasingly innovative practices being applied, with the result being an expansion of both skills and employment opportunities. If successful, such an approach has the potential to result in transformational and sustainable expansion of the Palestinian economy. While all sectors are supported in broad alignment with this framework, each specific sector receives tailored support responsive to its unique challenges and opportunities aimed at increasing competitiveness and market participation within that sector. This is achieved through critical inputs designed to support the sectors to expand in local and global markets. The Project also aims to improve access to services through the development of local business associations and business service providers. Furthermore, USAID through its Compete Project deliberately targets women and youth throughout its strategic interventions. D. Summary of the Activity/Project M&E Plan Compete places significant priority on monitoring and evaluation recognizing it to be a tool of critical importance both to day to day management and to the project’s capacity to provide robust evidence related results. A basic principle underpinning Compete’s M&E system is that all project participants have a role to play if highest possible results are to be achieved. The system is therefore designed to involve all technical team members and Project counterparts located in West Bank and Gaza, in a reporting process aimed at achieving: • Efficiency – in terms of recognizing those with first-hand knowledge of an activity are best placed to efficiently collect and verify basic M&E data in their respective technical areas. 62 • Ownership – in terms of allowing technical team members and counterparts a role and insight regarding the project approach, direction and results • Feedback – in terms of ensuring clear and shared understanding amongst technical team members and counterparts in relation to project progress and future needs A sophisticated and integrated project database is maintained with capacity to prepare a wide variety of reports of relevance against the project baseline assembled soon after commencement. Its M&E section includes the project Performance Management Plan, which includes annual targets and is reviewed annually to reflect progress and adapted needs by sector. Monitoring is based on tracking progress against both management and performance indicators at both output and outcome levels. Each performance indicator is classified and assigned to the related Project Intermediate Result. For each performance indicator, Compete collects actual data, monitors change as related to the relevant baseline, disaggregates data to identify differentiated results, and highlights notable variance from targets. Baseline and targets are revised and set out annually within the annual M&E Plan, which details sector by sector M&E plans, with sector specific indicators, as well as a set of cross-cutting indicators, that disaggregate overall project performance in relation to gender and youth inclusion. 63 IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation shall provide answers to the following five questions and related sub-questions: 6) To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework)? Sub-questions 1.10 To what extent (and why) have levels of investment and revenues of participating SMEs increased? Are trends apparent in different sectors and sub-sectors supported by the project? 1.11 Has the number of international markets accessed by Palestinian firms expanded? Has the quality and reliability of relationships with external buyers improved? 1.12 To what degree do firms feel supported by Business Associations and service providers? 1.13 Do supported firms enjoy increased market share for their products and services in West Bank and Gaza? 1.14 Has the project achieved demonstrable improvement in the quality of products and services produced by supported SMEs? Has this resulted in firms achieving greater value from their production? 1.15 Has the project generated increased employment opportunities for Palestinians? Do SMEs supported by the project employ additional people? 1.16 How has the project approached skills transfer and development? Are staff within participating firms applying enhanced skills? 1.17 Has the contribution made by other agencies/ mechanisms to participating firms been sufficiently factored into results reporting? 1.18 To what extent has the approach been proactive in promoting an enhanced role for women and youth? The project results framework includes three intermediate results, identified as key to achievement of the project goal of strengthened competitiveness and export potential within target sectors: • Increasing exports and investments • Increasing innovation of products and services • Increasing employment and expanding job skills The ET will review all available data and provide sector disaggregated reporting in relation to these three targets, considering the following: Exports and investments increased Innovation of products and services increased Employment increased, skills expanded • Shifts in revenue against baseline • Capacity to add value to exported products • Number, quality and reliability of relationships with external buyers increased? • Number of international markets accessed by Palestinian firms • Increased market share for Palestinian produced products in West Bank and Gaza • Number of new and/or improved Palestinian products expanded? • Quality improvement of Palestinian goods • Improved reputation for Palestinian products and services in local markets • Innovations being replicated in the Palestinian market place at equal or higher value • Shifts in employment over baseline • Increased youth employment opportunities • Increased women’s employment opportunities • Number of supported staff with/using enhanced skills? 64 Face to face interviewing will occur with more than 62 program participants to best understand ‘effectiveness’ in their particular context, and to determine the relevance and suitability of project indicators in reflecting their context. Prior to meeting, the ET will review the beneficiary file to understand context, baseline, reported progress and level of investment. Effectiveness of sector approaches will be reflected through both quantitative and qualitative assessment. The ET will also provide a SWOT analysis to highlight areas of greater success and risks to success in other areas, including analysis of level of effort needed and how much control USAID and partners may have in terms of influencing specific issues. Gender and youth differential participation and benefits will be considered as part of data collection and analysis. 7) Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable? Sub-questions 2.1 Are there common characteristics to successful project interventions? Do these differ across sectors or by type/size of grant?? 2.2 Which of these characteristics are sustainable without ongoing project support? What characteristics of success (if any) are reliant on external support? COMPETE provides specific inputs to firms to enhance economic growth within sectors viewed as having growth potential. The results framework above defines success, which can be seen from preliminary reading to vary across sectors and sub-sectors. The purpose of this question is to assess from an economic perspective, the potential for firms to continue and sustain a positive growth trajectory, and also the potential of the sector to achieve traction within domestic and international markets. Implicit in this field of enquiry is the question of attribution of impact, given Compete is but one actor working to strengthen the Palestinian economy. While attribution at firm level could potentially be straight forward, attribution of progression at sector level will present a more complex challenge, especially in sectors such as agriculture where multiple actors share similar objectives. To address these challenges the ET will meet with select key informants external to the Compete Project, in addition to those active in the project to disaggregate contribution. It is also anticipated that other external factors will have impacted progress, notably security issues and changes in restrictions to products allowed to enter West Bank, and particularly Gaza. 8) How can successful interventions (identified as part of Question 1) be replicated by future USAID programs? Sub-questions 3.1 Which have been the most successful intervention types, and why? Do these vary by sector? Do these vary when considered by level of financial assistance? 3.2 Which have been the most successful intervention types, and why? Do these vary by sector? Do these vary when considered by level of financial assistance? 3.3. Are there local mechanisms or is there local capacity capable of replicating better business support approaches? Compete holds a breadth of disaggregated data across 41 sub-sectors. Each sub-sector will be analyzed, and the sample of project beneficiaries will be adapted to ensure that evaluation captures the views of project beneficiaries across a purposively representative sample of beneficiary firms, farmers and support organizations through face-to-face meetings. Through this process of document review and face-to-face meetings, both qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered in relation to each sub-sector. Prior to meeting, specific approaches applied by the project within 65 each sub-sector will be understood and analyzed with beneficiaries during face to face meetings to determine what did and didn’t work. Once key achievements are identified and connected to successful interventions, the evaluation team will assess to what extent the successful interventions can be replicated through future USAID programming. 9) Were there any unintended project outcomes (positive or negative)? The exercise described under Question 1 will focus on intended results described in the two project results frameworks (and noted above) but methods used will be open enough to also capture possible or realize unintended outcomes (positive or negative). The evaluation team will consider the same risk analysis factors described above to determine possible sustainability (if positive) or feasible mitigation plans (if negative). 10)How did the project’s implementation approach and management, (including selection criteria and processes), influence the achievement of results? The evaluation team will assess the efficiency in the internal processes undertaken by the project to identify and select targeted sectors and firms. The team will highlight to what extent the management of those processes lead to the achievement of intended and unintended results. In addressing the above questions, the evaluation team will provide recommendations and lessons learned to inform future USAID programming. Recommendations will specifically address what priority sectors (perhaps beyond those targeted by COMPETE) USAID should consider as part of any future programming. Recommendations may also weigh the merits of the sector vs. sector-agnostic approaches and which is best suited for the WBG context. This will include recommendations of how future USAID programming can address remaining gaps, challenges and any unmet needs identified. V. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A. Summary of evaluation context and methodology The methodology proposed for this performance evaluation is based upon ensuring a rich blend of qualitative and quantitative evidence from which conclusions can be reached with regards to the degree to which project interventions and processes have been effective in achieving the results they set out to achieve. As can be seen in the context described above, this requires consideration of the overall effectiveness of the various approaches initiated by Compete to achieve its goal of strengthening the competitiveness and export potential of key sectors essential to the future prosperity of the Palestinian economy. Areas requiring detailed investigation can be summarized as: • The relevance of the overall approach in facilitating a more dynamic and supported Palestinian economy that positions Palestinian firms to better compete on international markets. • The capacity of the project to identify interventions capable of progressing its priority sectors in a form that is effective, replicable and sustainable. • Whether or not the approach is sufficiently thorough and capable of fully optimizing opportunities presented by the grants made available through the project. • The degree to which change at both firm and sector levels can be directly attributed to the project (given a development landscape where many actors are working towards similarly targeted objectives – especially in the agriculture sector). • Whether synergies have been built with other programs supporting market and private 66 sector development. • The degree to which circumstances beyond the control of the project have impacted progress. • Whether or not project interventions have positively (or negatively) impacted firms not directly active within the project? • The adequacy of data collection and management systems in facilitating clear sighted understanding of cause and effect of project interventions, and helping identify potential opportunities for replication. • The adequacy of management processes and resources to provide dynamic and responsive leadership in a highly complex and challenging operational environment requiring frequent adaptation. • The degree that gender and youth have been effectively integrated within the program approach as cross-cutting issues of importance. The central challenge for the evaluation team therefore is to holistically consider these various elements (including their relationships with each other) to determine the degree that the project is generating innovations and solutions that are relevant to the complex and somewhat unique context of the Palestinian economy. Within that assessment is a need to investigate whether or not sufficient consideration and strategy is being applied to ensuring that these innovations are accessible and overcome the many impediments that are known to have historically inhibited adoption of new technologies by smallholder farmers. Similarly, the evaluation will need to assess the degree to which assistance to business associations, services providers and trade support networks and organizations have contributed to the overall project results. Effective knowledge management and strategic dissemination of learning generated from Compete’s implementation is also of critical importance given the importance of scaling of interventions. It will therefore be important for the evaluation to consider the stakeholder landscape and the degree to which other key stakeholders have been engaged and leveraged in support of project objectives. The methodology is therefore built around assembling a logical sequence of evaluative approaches capable of establishing whether or not a clear and plausible line of sight exists from the types of support provided by the project to firms, support organizations and at sector level, towards sustainable outcomes related to increased exports and investment, enhanced and appropriate innovation and an expanding job market. Along that continuum, Compete has approaches in place that: ● Identified, understood, and responded to issues and needs of small and medium enterprises ● Articulated and prepared an approach responsive to identified needs. ● Cultivated awareness and understanding related to potential innovations ● Established an inclusive outreach and targeting approach ● Monitored and mitigated possible market distortions that it may be creating ● Established robust management systems, including appropriately transparent systems related to decision making on grants ● Set up dynamic monitoring approaches capable of validating the potential contribution and impact of its interventions ● Have in place clear sighted strategy capable of communicating results to different audiences in a form suitable to the needs of each of those audiences 67 A guiding premise of the evaluation therefore is to understand the process and rationale by which key decisions have been taken, including disbursement of grants. The evaluation team will work with a sample of beneficiaries from the point of their grant application to determine the quality and efficacy of the many dimensions of support that occurred along their ‘Compete journey’. Within this approach will be the need to understand other interventions being made on the economic landscape by Compete to determine their effectiveness in supporting grantees and enhancing chances of ‘success’. It is also anticipated that the project’s more general economic and sector landscape interventions might have potentially enhanced opportunities for firms not directly participating in Compete. Conversely, it is also possible that project support to one firm comes to the detriment of others. The evaluation approach will then progress logically along the implementation continuum of target sectors considering the above-mentioned issues. The proposed approach is embedded in a determination to remain flexible and responsive to information as it arises. This is regarded as particularly important in the context of a program like Compete given its diverse range of activities, partners, and potential beneficiaries, and that its sophisticated approach engages multiple stakeholder simultaneously. It is imperative that both quantitative and qualitative data be gathered throughout the evaluation. It is also important that the ET develop a full and sophisticated understanding of how the results presented in project reporting were gathered, in order to understand how completely they describe the project picture. While detailed analysis and understanding of quantitative data will be essential, the ET also places great importance on the gathering of high-value, qualitative data from across the key informant landscape in order to understand the full context of the project’s headline results in terms of business confidence, skills development, a more collegiate and collaborative business sector and the impact that the project is having on the lives of those women and youth that it has supported. Where possible, qualitative findings will be cross-checked and triangulated from multiple sources and against available quantitative project data, as well as other data sources when or if applicable. Other factors relevant to measuring progress toward program objectives and outcomes relate to the: ● Strengths (and weaknesses) of the program structure and program management approach; ● Organization and implementation factors, including the efficacy of program processes for information sharing and dissemination of results (both internally and externally); ● Depth of ownership and involvement in activities by partners and other important development actors such as government staff, local civil society, academia and the broader donor community with shared interests; and ● Whether a genuine space exists within the program approach for meaningful inclusion and voice for women’s perspectives in programming. Given the diverse nature of a program providing grants that range from $405 to $2.224 million, considerable variability in approach will be inevitable. It will therefore be important to fully understand how approaches differ and to consider the relative merits of these different approaches. To assist with this, evaluation findings will be disaggregated to achieve more granular understanding of project impact, by disaggregating data in terms of sector (and sub-sector, where possible); type/level of assistance (low/mid/high); and gender and region (WB and Gaza). 68 Due to the complexity presented by a project that has invested in 1,550 different small or medium enterprises (holding significant data on each), it is proposed that the evaluation approach build logically from an extensive review of the library of program data maintained on the various Compete databases. While heavily biased towards quantitative data, this database still provides trends and insight as to program performance, especially when reviewed alongside narrative reporting. Collectively, the evaluation team will work through a logical sequence of desk review, evaluation planning, and consideration of results reported) to determine optimum use of time in the field. Once on the ground, key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) will be employed to gather qualitative data related to fully understanding program performance and direction, allowing for triangulation of recommendations. Key informants (described from the ground up) will include: ● Farmers and representatives from targeted firms (micro, small and medium enterprises) and support organizations, ● Government partners, particularly the Ministries of Agriculture, National Economy, Tourism and Antiquities, and Communication and Information Technology. ● Other development actors interested in private sector promotion (both donor and civil society). ● Sector bodies, such as the Palestine Trade Center, Palestinian Federation of Industries, Palestinian IT Association of Companies, Chambers of Commerce etc. ● Academic institutions such as the Palestine Polytechnic University, which was also a project grantee. ● Compete Management ● USAID Mission ● Other donors (whose interest is more sector focused, e.g. Government of Australia or FAO) Final recommendations will be firmly evidenced-based and presented in a format that is accessible to all stakeholders. Recommendations will be divided into overall program, sector, and management sections, while also ensuring coherent discussion of the inevitable linkages that exist among them. The evaluation will be undertaken by a small team led by an international consultant with support from three highly qualified and relevantly experienced Palestinian team, including a gender specialist to help ensure highest possible gender analysis is integrated within the evaluation approach. B. Sampling The proposed sample of firms is presented in Annex A – Evaluation Sample. Evaluation sampling is based on the analysis summarized in Annex B – Summary analysis of Compete data. In total, Compete works across 6 sectors and 41 sub-sectors, providing support to a total of 1,550 beneficiary farmers, firms and support organizations. This support ranges in scale from $405 to $2.24 million, with nearly 90% of the value of support provided concentrated in the agriculture (43%), Tourism (33%) and ICT (13%) sub-sectors. The sample aims to allow insight to all sectors, given variability in performance is already reported by the project. The evaluation will use a purposive sampling approach in selecting the beneficiary farmers, firms, and organization it will meet. This approach is designed to ensure that sampling of firms fairly represents: the various sectors and subs-sectors in terms of number of firms assisted and distribution of firms and sub-sectoral distribution of USAID investment; the types and categories of firms and organizations assisted, types of assistance provided, and the bands of investments in the sampled sub-sectors, with 69 each of low, midpoint and high targeted in the sampled sub-sectors where more than ten beneficiaries exist. Sample selection will consider participation of women and youth as a selection criteria, to ensure understanding of the participation and challenges inherent in these two important cohorts. In view of the Mid-Term Review that examined performance during the first three years of project implementation, the sampling will be weighted towards the firms that received support from the fourth year of implementation onwards. C. Data Analysis Plan The analysis of data gathered by this evaluation will be an iterative process built around the Evaluation Questions and sub-questions. The analytic process involves drawing on evidence from the various data sources to articulate and corroborate findings relevant to these questions, with cross￾checks across sources. The type of analysis will vary by type of data. The document review will stress content analysis. The quantitative data will use basic statistical tools, aggregating across sectors and sub-sectors in some cases and drawing comparisons among sectors in others. The qualitative data will be coded and mapped by themes to identify (and document) patterns across sectors, sub-sectors, types of assistance, and over time. Because it is an iterative process, the analysis is continuous throughout the data collection period as new pieces of evidence are brought to bear. In keeping of one of QED’s best practices in evaluation, the team will have dedicated time to do this throughout the evaluation instead of just a block of time at the end- (i.e. day six of every work week). The findings relative to the Evaluation Question or sub￾question are used to establish conclusions, which in turn serve as the basis for extraction of lessons learned and recommendations. All members of the evaluation team will be involved in the analysis through examination of the findings and statement of conclusions, and in the definition of the lessons learned and recommendations. Consensus among team members is required for the evaluation recommendations. 70 D. Evaluation Design Matrix Questions Suggested Data Sources (*) Suggested Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods 1. To what extent have project activities been effective in achieving intended objectives and key results (as per the project results framework)? a. Project reporting b. Project database c. Project management d. Project staff e. Business associations f. Relevant ministries g. Supported companies h. Service providers i. U.S. Mission j. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion ● Reading and analysis of existing reporting and other documentation ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions o disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.1 To what extent (and why) have levels of investment and revenues of participating SMEs increased? Are trends apparent in different sectors and sub-sectors supported by the project? a. Project reporting b. Project database c. Project management d. Project staff e. Business Associations f. Supported companies g. Relevant ministries • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion • Reading and analysis of existing reporting and other documentation • Quantitative analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including gender disaggregated analysis when possible • Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results: o recorded against project questions o disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) 71 1.2 Has the number of international markets accessed by Palestinian firms expanded? Has the quality and reliability of relationships with external buyers improved? a. Project reporting b. Project management c. Project staff d. Business associations e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. Relevant ministries • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews ● Reading and analysis of existing reporting and other documentation ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions o disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.3 To what degree do firms feel supported by Business Associations and service providers? a. Project staff b. Supported companies c. Business Associations d. Service providers • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussions ● Quantitative analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including gender disaggregated analysis when possible ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.4 Do supported firms enjoy increased market share for their products and services in West Bank and Gaza? a. Project reporting b. Project staff c. Project database d. Supported companies e. Business Associations f. Relevant ministries • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews ● Reading and analysis of existing reporting and other documentation ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) 72 o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.5 Has the project achieved demonstrable improvement in the quality of products and services produced by supported SMEs? Has this resulted in firms achieving greater value from their production? a. Project reporting b. Supported companies c. Business Associations d. Relevant ministries e. Palestinian Standards Institute • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.6 Has the project generated increased employment opportunities for Palestinians? Do SMEs supported by the project employ additional people? a. Project reporting b. Project database c. Project staff d. Supported companies e. Ministry of Labor • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.7 How has the project approached skills transfer and development? Are staff within participating firms applying enhanced skills? a. Project reporting b. Project staff c. Supported companies d. Service providers • Desk review • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) 73 ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.8 Has the contribution made by other agencies/ mechanisms to participating firms been sufficiently factored into results reporting? a. Project management b. Supported companies c. Business Associations d. Support agencies e. Relevant ministries f. U.S. Mission g. Other donors and agencies active in private sector development • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 1.9 To what extent has the approach been proactive in promoting an enhanced role for women and youth? a. Project reporting b. Project database c. Supported companies d. Women working within supported companies e. Women’s organizations f. Youth organizations • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 2. Where key achievements are identified in targeted sectors, to what extent are these achievements sustainable? a. Project reporting b. Project management c. Business associations d. Relevant ministries e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Desk review • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) 74 ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 2.1 Are there common characteristics to successful project interventions? Do these differ across sectors or by type/size of grant? a. Project reporting b. Project management c. Project staff d. Business associations e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Desk review • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 2.2 Which of these characteristics are sustainable without ongoing project support? What characteristics of success (if any) are reliant on external support? a. Project reporting b. Project management c. Project staff d. Business associations e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Desk review • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 3. How can successful interventions (identified as part of Question 1) be replicated by future USAID programs? a. Project reporting b. Project management c. Project staff d. Business associations e. Relevant ministries f. Supported companies g. Service providers h. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 75 3.1 Which have been the most successful intervention types, and why? Do these vary by sector? Do these vary when considered by level of financial assistance? a. Project reporting b. Project database c. Project management d. Project staff e. Business associations f. Relevant ministries g. Supported companies h. Service providers i. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 3.2 How can USAID best replicate such approaches? What opportunities exist to evolve the approach towards greater self￾reliance and sustainability? a. Project management b. Project staff c. Business associations d. Relevant ministries e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. U.S. Mission h. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 3.3 Are there local mechanisms or is there local capacity capable of replicating better business support approaches? a. Project management b. Project staff c. Business associations d. Relevant ministries e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. U.S. Mission h. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Desk Review • Key Informant Interviews ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 4) Were there any unintended project a. Project management b. Project staff c. Business associations d. Relevant ministries • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: 76 outcomes (positive or negative)? e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. Donors and agencies active in private sector development h. Companies within sectors NOT supported by project Interviews o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 5) How did the project’s implementation approach and management, (including selection criteria and processes), influence the achievement of results? a. Project management b. Project staff c. Business associations d. Relevant ministries e. Supported companies f. Service providers g. Donors and agencies active in private sector development • Desk review • Data analysis • Key Informant Interviews • Focus Group Discussion ● Quantitative Analysis of Project Management Information System (MIS), including disaggregated analysis of results: o recorded against project questions disaggregated by sector o disaggregated by level of assistance (low, mid, high) o disaggregated by gender o disaggregated by region (WB or Gaza) ● Qualitative analysis of KII and FGD results using above detailed disaggregation 77 VI. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The evaluation will present the following deliverables: Deliverable 1: Final SOW (March 23, 2018) At the Kickoff Meeting, the evaluation team leader will present a final SOW which includes a) a detailed work plan/timeline, b) methodology, c) data collection tools/protocols and informed consent forms, d) data analysis plan and e) any modifications to deliverables. Field work will not begin until the evaluation team receives written approval of the proposed data collection instruments. Deliverable 2: Mid-Evaluation Debrief to USAID (on/about April 17, 2018) The Evaluation Team Leader will conduct a debrief to USAID to provide a progress report on field activities, including challenges and any unanticipated field course corrections in scheduling or in the overall implementation plan. Deliverable 3: End-of-Evaluation Oral De-brief to USAID on Preliminary Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (on/about April 26, 2018) After completion of the fieldwork and prior to the submission of the draft evaluation report, the Team Leader will provide a formal debriefing to USAID points of contact. The debriefing will include a discussion of findings (accomplishments and challenges), conclusions and preliminary recommendations. The evaluation team will consider all oral comments and will incorporate feedback into the draft report as it is finalized. Deliverable 4: Delivery of the draft evaluation report (English) and the draft stand-alone executive summary (English) (On/about April 16, 2018) QED will submit a draft version of the 30-page evaluation report with associated annexes to the USAID technical team for review and comment. The report will describe findings (accomplishments and challenges) and recommendations. The 6-8-page executive summary will be included in the body of the text of the draft report prior to the page count and will also be delivered as a stand-alone document for public dissemination. The USAID technical team will provide consolidated written comments on the draft report/executive summary within 10 working days of receiving the draft documents. Deliverable 5: Final Evaluation report (English) and the stand-alone final executive summary (English) (on/about May 31, 2018) Upon receipt of consolidated comments46, the team leader will address said comments in a final revision of the report/executive summary within 5 business days. QED will resubmit the revised versions to USAID for review and approval. Deliverable 6: Infographic The QED team will engage our in-house designer to produce a two-page full color infographic which illustrates key findings, recommendations and insights. This deliverable will be geared toward one particular audience as determined during the Kick off Meeting. The draft and final infographic will be based on the USAID approved executive summary. QED will submit to USAID an infographic in English and a translation of the infographic into Arabic, if required, in electronic format (Microsoft 46 QED requests that USAID solicit feedback from other stakeholders on the draft report and provide all feedback in one consolidated document or other format agreed to during the Kick off Meeting. 78 Word). Prior to submission, the Arabic translation will be proofread by a professional from within the technical field to ensure technical terms are appropriately and accurately translated. Deliverable 7: Translation of the stand-alone final executive summary (Arabic) If requested by USAID, QED will submit to USAID a translation of the executive summary (Arabic) in electronic format (Microsoft Word) within 15 business days of USAID written approval of Deliverable 5. Prior to submission, the Arabic translations will be proofread by a professional from within the technical field to ensure technical terms are appropriately and accurately translated. Deliverable 8: Post the USAID approved final report (English), the stand-alone final executive summary (English and Arabic if required) and the infographic (English) to the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) Within 30 calendar days of USAID written approval of the final report (English the stand-alone final executive summary (English and Arabic if required) and the infographic (English), QED will post said documents to the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for public access and use. Deliverable 9: Post USAID-approved anonymized public-release datasets and associated supporting technical documentation to the USAID Development Data Library (DDL) Within 30 calendar days of USAID written approval of the final report (English) and stand-alone executive summary (English), QED will submit anonymized “public release” quantitative and qualitative datasets (English) and associated supporting technical documentation (English) for written approval. Within 30 calendar days of USAID written approval of anonymized “public release” datasets (English) and associated supporting technical documentation (English), QED will post said materials to the USAID DDL for public access and use. In addition, QED will submit said materials to the task order COR on a secured flash drive; all materials will be in an unlocked and editable format 79 VII. EVALUATION SCHEDULE Compete Project Performance Evaluation By whom Planned Key Dates (provisional per agreement with USAID) Phase 1 - Inception Team preparation prior to Evaluation Mission (Desk Review) Team 15 – 22 Mar 2018 Submit Draft Expanded Scope of Work and Evaluation Methodology (after QED’s quality check) TL 23 Mar Phase 2 - Evaluation Mission - Fieldwork in West Bank and Gaza Strip Team Leader arrives in-country TL 26 Mar Evaluation Team meeting and debriefing by QED – Team develops detailed field work schedule. Initial meeting with USAID. Team 27 Mar Kick-Off meeting with USAID, including presentation of Expanded Scope of Work. Introductory meeting with DAI/Compete. Team 28 Mar Team revises evaluation methodology, further develops evaluation tools based on verbal feedback from USAID and resubmits to USAID for feedback. Team 29-31 Mar USAID reviews and approves Expanded Scope of Work. USAID 1 Apr Fieldwork in the West Bank and Gaza Strip begins & desk review continues. Internal team meetings for stock-taking and rolling analysis of findings and conclusions. Team 1 Apr – 24 Apr Mid-point briefing to USAID TL 16 Apr Final briefing to USAID TL 27 Apr Phase 3 - Evaluation Report (ER) – high quality report from draft 1 onwards Draft 1 Submit draft Evaluation Report (ER1) to USAID (after QED’s quality check) TL&QED 16 May USAID feedback sent to the team USAID 23 May 80 Compete Project Performance Evaluation By whom Planned Key Dates (provisional per agreement with USAID) Draft 2 Submit revised Evaluation Report (ER2) to USAID (after QED’s quality check) TL&QED 31 May USAID final feedback sent to the team USAID 5 Jun Draft 3 Submit revised Evaluation Report (ER3) to USAID (after QED’s quality check) TL&QED 10 Jun Final Draft Submit Final Evaluation Report (ER3) to USAID, addressing final comments as appropriate (after QED’s quality check) TL&QED 20 Jun USAID approves report USAID 7 July Infographic QED begins infographic design in collaboration with USAID QEQ 1 May QED submits final infographic QED 22 May All Deliverable QED submits all remaining deliverables to USAID QED 30 May Note: TL = Team Leader. ER = Evaluation Report. 81 VIII. FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report will include an executive summary; introduction; background of the local context and the projects being evaluated; the main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and lessons learned. The executive summary will be kept to a maximum of 5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned. The evaluation methodology will be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation will also be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology as it unfolded in practice (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report will include: • The Evaluation SOW; • Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; • All tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; • Sources of information, properly identified and listed; and • Disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of. In accordance with AIDAR 752.7005, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of final approval of the formatted report. IX. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per the USAID Evaluation Policy and USAID ADS 203, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report.2 • The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well￾organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not, and why. • Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the SOW. • The evaluation report should include the SOW as an annex. All modifications to the SOW— whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline—need to be agreed upon in writing by the AOR/COR. • The evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail. All tools used in conducting 82 the evaluation—such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides—will be included in an annex in the final report. • Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females. • Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. • Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. • Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. OTHER REQUIREMENTS All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine-readable, non￾proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all dasets developed. All modifications to the required elements of the SOW of the contract/agreement, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline, need to be agreed upon in writing by the COR. Any revisions should be updated in the SOW that is included as an annex to the Evaluation Report. 2 See Appendix I of the Evaluation Policy and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 83 Annex (B)- Evaluation Data Collection Tools The following interview guides have been developed to guide key informant interviews (and focus group discussions, when appropriate) with key informant groups. The instruments provide a broad guide from which questions will be tailored to the specific context of interviewees. Interviews with program participants and benficiaries will draw on background information provided by Compete in relation to that particular context, including: • Initial application for assistance • Business case developed by Compete in support of application • Compete rationale for deciding in favor of the application • Details of the grant • Baseline and data collected against business case indicators While efforts will be made to tailor to each particular informant, the following tools provide a framework for interviewing of the following key informant types: • Category A: Program participants/beneficiaries • Category B: Support agencies • Category C: Relevant Government agencies • Category D: Donors and other Development Actors interested in Private sector development Each interview aims to achieve detailed and holistic raw data that can contribute to answering of the questions detailed in the Evaluation Design included in the expanded Scope of Work. Consideration of gender dimensions will be factored into each interview. The interviewing approach will be open, and additional lines of enquiry will be followed if thought to be relevant to the overall evaluation approach – particularly questions related to unintended outcomes. An introduction to each meeting will highlight: • Importance of the interview to shaping future thinking around private enterprise support • Our interest is in directly linking Compete support to changes in your business practice • Total anonymity of the interview • No results will be reported against any specific activity • The importance of honest answers 84 Category A: Key Informant Interviews – Program participants/ beneficiaries Name Business Location Date BACKGROUND Objectives of this section of interview: • Better understand process of outreach and promotion of Compete • Understanding of process of application • Details of support available to encourage application • Levels of satisfaction with outreach and application process A1. How did you first hear about Compete? a.Advertisement b. Business association c.Word of Mouth d. Other……… A2. Was the grant application process easy to understand? a.Yes b. No A3. Was the grant application process easy to complete? a.Yes b. No A4. If no, was support available to assist with application? a.Yes Details: ………………. b. No A5. Can you describe the process of your application and how agreement was reached with Compete?: A6. What were the greatest challenges of the process? oDetails A7. What was it that you found most attractive about the Compete approach? • Availability of a grant • Availability of technical assistance • Workforce development • Other Details of assistance Objectives of this section of interview: • Understand the context of support to the firm • Understand the context of how firms engaged Support agencies which Compete supported A8. Please describe details of your agreement and the different aspects of support provided by Compete (explore the following to prompt): Workforce development Grants/Financial Technical assistance Linkage to business advisors Strengthened capacity of Support Agencies Workforce development Market access Other  Document key differences between interviewee understanding and documents provided by Compete 85 A9. Has Compete support to other organizations assisted in your own organizations development? e.g business associations, distribution centres, cooperatives etc.? • Details A10. Does your business receive support from other agencies? • If yes, who and what? • Explore significance of Compete support compared to other support. oDetails A11. Women Were any specific approaches put in place to support women’s participation? • If so, what? Impact of assistance from Compete Objectives of this section of interview: • Achieve textured understanding of impact of support to firm • Identify gaps that could have further progressed the firm • Understand the contribution of project support to Support agencies A12. What have been the major changes for your business since receiving support from Compete? (allow them to self identify initially, then prompt with specific questions below related to different facets of support): oDetails A13. What has been the impact on your business of the relationship with Compete in terms of: • A13.a Innovation – what changes have you made to your business approach? oDetails • A13.b Investment – Have you further invested in your company since receiving support from Compete? Was Compete support a factor in your decision to invest further in the company? oDetails • A13.c Market orientation – what has changed for you in terms of the customers/markets you now engage? By type? Location? By breadth? oDetails • A13.d Export orientation - Have you entered or expanded export markets through the project? oDetails • A13.e Domestic orientation – Have you been able to expand in local market place? oDetails • A13.f Value adding – are you able to achieve a better price for your products now? Are you able to produce more? oDetails • A13. g Employment – have market changes reduced or increased the number of people you employ? (from baseline to now?) oIf employing more, what type of people are you employing? Age/ gender/ skill level? oDetails oWomen – was the project supportive of women’s participation • A13.h Revenue/profit – Have total revenues increased? Have profits increased? oDetails • A13.i Supporting opportunities for women – has the project worked with you to encourage women’s inclusion in your business model? 86 oIf yes, how? oIf yes, what has been the impact of that support? A14. Of the different types of support provided, what were the two most valuable support components for your situation? (in order) 1. …. 2. …. Future directions/sustainability Objectives of this section of interview: • Consider issues of sustainability • Consider gaps in Compete model A15. Thinking about the range of assistance provided through Compete, what other types of support could further strengthen your business. A16. (If achieving progress) Will you be able to maintain progress of your business without further support? A17. Over the next 24 months, do you expect to employ: a.The same number of people b. More people c.Less people A18. Overall, how would you assess your business development and opportunity over the next two years? a.Worsen b. Stay the same as now c.Improve modestly d. Improve significantly A19. If USAID is to commence another private sector promotion type project in the WB and Gaza, what would you suggest their major focus be? oDetails A20 Women Are there different approaches you would recommend to better support inclusion of women in the project? Unintended consequences Objectives of this section of interview: • Have there been unintended consequences (positive or negative)? A21. Are Compete efforts benefitting non-direct project beneficiaries? (Skills transfer, improved business associations, technical advances, replication of new technologies, etc..) A22. Have their been any negative consequences • Unsupported actors being squeezed out of market • Market distortions e.g land prices A23. Has the project contributed to greater consideration of women’s needs and inclusion in your business model? Project management Objectives of this section of interview: • Determine suitability of management approach to different client groups’ reality • Determine degree that management system was able to listen and respond to participants perspectives/concerns • Re-emphasize confidentiality! 87 A24. Thinking of your overall relationship with Compete, have they been responsive and easy to work with? (quite possibly, the relationship might have been both good and bad at times) • If yes, examples? • If no, examples? A.25What management and/or communication approaches would have assisted the project approach? oDetails Other notes 88 Category B: Key Informant Interviews – Support agencies BACKGROUND Objectives of this section of interview: • Better understand process of outreach and promotion of Compete • Understanding of process of including Support agencies • Levels of satisfaction amongst Support agencies B1. How did you first hear about Compete? e. Advertisement f. Business association g.Word of Mouth h. Other……… B2. Was the grant application process easy to understand? c.Yes d. No B3. Was the grant application process easy to complete? c.Yes d. No B4. If no, was support available to assist with application? c.Yes Details: ………………. d. No B5. Can you describe the process of your application and how agreement was reached with Compete?: B6. What were the greatest challenges of the process? oDetails Details of assistance Objectives of this section of interview: • Understand the context of facilitating a supportive business landscape • Understand the context of how firms engaged Support agencies which Compete supported B7. Please describe details of your agreement and the different aspects of support provided by Compete (explore the following to prompt): Workforce development Grants/Financial Technical assistance Linkage to business advisors Strengthened capacity of Support Agencies Workforce development Market access Other • Document key differences between interviewee understanding and documents provided by Compete B8. Describe your approach to engaging SMEs and how you provided support to them. • Details B9.Does your approach support an export orientation? • Details B10. Does your business/association/coop receive support from other agencies? • If yes, who? • Explore significance of Compete support compared to other support. oDetails 89 B11. Women Were any specific approaches put in place to support women’s participation? • If so, what? Impact of assistance from Compete Objectives of this section of interview: • Achieve textured understanding of impact of support • Identify gaps that could have further progressed the approach • Understand the contribution of project support to Support agencies B12. What have been the major changes your organization has experienced through Compete support? (allow them to self identify initially, then prompt with specific questions below related to different facets of support): oDetails B13. What has been the impact of Compete support on your business in terms of: • B13.a Innovation – what changes have you made to your approach? oDetails • B13.b Investment – Have you further invested in your company/association since receiving support from Compete? Was Compete support a factor in your decision to invest further? oDetails • B13.c Market orientation – what has changed for you in terms of interest in the services you provide? (try to quantify) oDetails • B13.d Export orientation – Has your support enhanced the export orientation of clients? oDetails • B13.e Domestic orientation – Has your support enhanced client ability to better engage and expand in local market place? oDetails • B13.f Value adding – are your approaches helping support value adding and the achievement of better prices? oDetails Sustainability Objectives of this section of interview: • The degree that the support organization is a contributing factor to sustainability • Are there gaps in Compete model that could be added to enhance effectiveness and sustainability of the model B15. Thinking about the range of assistance provided through Compete, what other types of support would further strengthen the business landscape you operate within. B.16 Will you be able to maintain the contribution you make to that landscape without further support? B.17 Over the next 24 months, do you expect to employ: a.The same number of people b. More people c.Less people B.18 Overall, how would you assess the direction of the business landscape that you work on over the next two years? a.Will worsen b. Stay the same as now 90 c.Improve modestly d. Improve significantly B.19 If USAID is to commence another private sector promotion type project in the WB and Gaza, would you suggest their approach be? More or less the same, or evolved? oDetails B.20 Women Are there opportunities to strengthen women’s participation and contribution to your business landscape? B.21 Youth Are there opportunities to strengthen youth participation and contribution to your business landscape? Unintended consequences Objectives of this section of interview: • Have there been unintended consequences (positive or negative? B.22 Have they observed Compete efforts benefitting non-direct project beneficiaries? (Skills, through business associations, technical advances, replication of new technologies, approaches to new markets, etc..) B.23 Have they observed any negative consequences • Unsupported actors being squeezed out of market • Market distortions e.g land prices, monopolies B.24 Has the project contributed to greater consideration of women’s needs and inclusion on your business landscape/sector? Project management Objectives of this section of interview: • Determine suitability of management approach to different client groups’ reality • Determine degree that management system was able to listen and respond to participants perspectives/concerns • Re-emphasize confidentiality! B.25 Thinking of your overall relationship with Compete, have they been responsive and easy to work with? (quite possibly, the relationship might have been both good and bad at times) • If yes, examples? • If no, examples? B.26 What management and/or communication approaches would have assisted the project approach? oDetails Other notes 91 Category C: Key Informant Interviews – Government agencies Objectives of interviewing of Government agencies: • Understand relationship maintained with key government agencies • Assess degree that approaches and results have been communicated to Government partners • Understands sector needs as perceived by Government • Determine levels of satisfaction amongst Government agencies of Project approach BACKGROUND C1. Can you describe the history of the relationship between your Ministry and Compete since it commenced in 2012? • Clarity around the approach • Depth of engagement • Frequency of engagement • Potential for Ministry to contribute to thinking around needs within the sector DETAILS OF RELATIONSHIP C2. How would you describe the role of your Ministry on the Compete landscape? What is your contribution to the project? C3. What are the most commons forms of communication between the project and your Ministry? C4. Compete has a range of different approaches to private sector development. Can you comment on the contribution and effectiveness of the following approaches in progressing your sector of interest: • Access to high quality business development advice • Support to business strategy development • Support for innovation • Availability of grants • Workforce development • Technical assistance • Support to the broader business landscape ostrengthened business associations omore reliable supply lines oetc. • Market development • Support for enhanced expert orientation • Improved operating environment i.e. helping reduce market constraints (through lobbying of Israeli government) C5. What systems and resources does the Ministry have in place to support private sector development itself? C6. Would you say there is complementarity between how Compete operates in your sector and your own strategy and objectives for the sector? • your approach to engaging SMEs and providing support to them • your approach to improve the sector’s export orientation (or engaging external markets) • your approach to addressing market constraints C7. Do you have any specific approaches in place for enhancing women’s participation in the sector? C8. Do you have any specific approaches in place for enhancing youth participation in the sector? C.9 Has Compete contributed to improving opportunities for women and/or youth in your sector? 92 C.10 Has Compete worked well with other private sector development actors active in your sector? Impact of assistance from Compete C11. How would you describe the overall contribution of Compete to your sector specifically, and private sector development more generally? C.12 What have been the major changes you have observed in relation to the following facets of support: • C12.a Innovation oDetails; examples oIs there evidence of spillover from Compete to others in the sector? • C12.b Investment – Are businesses more confident to invest through receiving support from Compete? oDetails; examples oIs there evidence of spillover from Compete to others in the sector? • C12.c Market orientation – Are Compete supported businesses better able to expand their markets? oDetails; examples oIs there evidence of spillover from Compete to others in the sector? • C12.d Export orientation – Have Compete supported business become more export orientated? oDetails; examples oIs there evidence of spillover from Compete to others in the sector? • C12.e Domestic orientation – Are Compete supported businesses better able to engage and expand in the local market place? oDetails; examples oIs there evidence of spillover from Compete to others in the sector? • C12.f Value adding – Do you observe Compete supported businesses being effective in value adding? Are they achieving better prices? oDetails; examples oIs there evidence of spillover from Compete to others in the sector? • C12.g Employment – what do you observe in Compete supported businesses in relation to employment? ohas the overall employment context of your sector improved? oHave opportunities arisen for women and youth? • C12.h Revenue/profit – what do you know of the revenues and profitability being achieved by Compete supported companies? oDetails • C12.i Support Organizations (Component B) oHas Compete been effective in building the overall market landscape in terms of support to Support entities; business associations; supply chains; back houses; access to technical expertise • C12.h Supporting opportunities for women – has the project worked to encourage women’s inclusion in your business model? oIf yes, how? oIf yes, what has been the impact of that support? C13. How have all of the above impacted upon and affected your Ministry’s position and capacity to progress your sector? • Do you feel strengthened in your role following Compete? • Do you feel the sector has been strengthened following Compete? 93 Unintended consequences C.14 Have you observed Compete efforts benefitting non-direct project beneficiaries? (Skills, through business associations, technical advances, replication of new technologies, approaches to new markets, etc..) C.15 Have you observed any negative consequences • Unsupported actors being squeezed out of market • Market distortions C.16 Has the project contributed to greater consideration of women’s needs and inclusion on your business landscape/sector? Project management C.17 Thinking of your overall relationship with Compete, have they been responsive and easy to work with? (quite possibly, the relationship might have been both good and bad at times) • If yes, examples? • If no, examples? C.18 What management and/or communication approaches would have strengthened the project approach? oDetails Future directions/sustainability C19. Do you believe the approach employed by Compete has sufficiently taken sustainability issues into account? Are/will supported companies be able to continue to progress their businesses after Compete support stops? C20. Thinking about the range of assistance provided through Compete, what other types of support would further strengthen the private sector landscape of your areas of interest? C21. What approaches would you like to see in future private sector promotion type projects in the WB and Gaza?, What is most important in terms of further evolving your sector? oDetails C22. Are there opportunities to strengthen women’s participation and contribution to your business landscape? C23. Are there opportunities to strengthen youth participation and contribution to your business landscape? Other notes 94 Category D: Key Informant Interviews – Donors and other Development Actors interested in Private sector development Objectives of interviewing of donors and other development agencies: • Understand relationship maintained by Compete with other actors interested in private sector development • Assess degree that dialogue exists with other actors interested in private sector development • Understand sector needs as perceived by other actors interested in private sector development BACKGROUND D1. Can you describe your understanding of Compete and the nature of your relationship with them? • Frequency and nature of engagement D2. What programming are you currently undertaking in support of private sector development? • Agriculture? • ICT? • Stone and Marble? • Tourism? • Garments? • Fisheries? D3. How do you see the private sector development landscape in general, and within these sectors in particular? DETAILS OF RELATIONSHIP D4. Compete has a range of different approaches to private sector development. Can you comment on 1/ their contribution and effectiveness and 2/ current needs and opportunities in the following respects: • Access to high quality business development advice • Support to business strategy development • Support for innovation • Availability of grants • Workforce development • Technical assistance • Support to the broader business landscape ostrengthened business associations omore reliable supply lines oetc. • Market development • Support for enhanced expert orientation • Improved operating environment i.e. helping reduce market constraints (through lobbying of Israeli government) D5. What other actors are active and undertaking programming in these areas? What do you regard to be best practice in private sector development currently, noting the many unique constraints faced in the West Bank and Gaza? D6. What differences do you observe in terms of promoting private sector development in West Bank and Gaza? D7. Would you say there is complementarity between how Compete operates in your sector and your own strategy and objectives for the sector? • your approach to engaging SMEs and providing support to them • your approach to improve the sector’s export orientation (or engaging external markets) • your approach to addressing market constraints 95 D.8 Do you have any specific approaches in place for enhancing women’s participation in the sector? What have you observed as being effective practice in enhancing women’s private sector participation? D.9 Do you have any specific approaches in place for enhancing youth participation in the sector? What have you observed as being effective practice in enhancing youth private sector participation? D.10 Do you regard Compete as having made a positive contribution to improving opportunities for women and/or youth in the private sector? D.11 Are there any particular sectors where you regard Compete performance to stand out – either positively or negatively? Unintended consequences D.12 Have you observed Compete efforts benefitting non-direct project beneficiaries? (Skills, through business associations, technical advances, replication of new technologies, approaches to new markets, etc..) D.15 Have you observed any negative consequences coming from Compete implementation? For e.g. • Unsupported actors being squeezed out of market • Market distortions D.16 Has the project contributed to greater consideration of women’s needs and inclusion on your business landscape/sector? Project management D.17 Thinking of your overall relationship with Compete, have they been responsive and easy to work with? (quite possibly, the relationship might have been both good and bad at times) • If yes, examples? • If no, examples? D.18 What management and/or communication approaches would have strengthened the project approach? oDetails Future directions/sustainability D19. Do you believe the approach employed by Compete has sufficiently taken sustainability issues into account? Are/will supported companies be able to continue to progress their businesses after Compete support stops? D20. Thinking about the range of assistance provided through Compete, what other types of support would further strengthen the private sector landscape of your areas of interest? D21. What approaches would you like to see in future private sector promotion type projects in the WB and Gaza? What is most important in terms of further evolving your sector? oDetails D22. Are there opportunities to strengthen women’s participation and contribution to your business landscape? D23. Are there opportunities to strengthen youth participation and contribution to your business landscape? Other notes 96 Annex (C)- Final Sample of Firms/ Farmers Interviewed Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 1 Kufr Dan Cooperative WB Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber M 3 FY5 2 1 $ 90,138.00 2 Shiraz Adel Ghalib Maree WB Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber M 1 FY5 1 $ 856.80 3 Mahmoud Saleh Mounir Abed WB Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber M 1 FY5 1 $ 856.80 4 Tubas Company for Packaging and Marketing Agricultural P WB Tubas Agriculture Carrots M 2 FY3 2 $ 547,238.16 6 Al Furat Agricultural Co. (Mwaffaq Daraghmeh) WB Tubas Agriculture Potatoes M 5 FY1 2 1 1 1 $ 201,988.80 8 Al Far'a and Albuqe'a Farm WB Tubas Agriculture Potatoes M 2 FY2 1 1 $ 112,156.73 9 Osama Abu Al Rub WB Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry M 3 FY3 1 1 1 $ 123,267.00 10 Farmer Khaled Mohammed Yassin Abu Al rob WB Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry M 1 FY5 1 $ 13,786.95 11 Raeda Hasan Mohammed Assous WB Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry F 3 FY4 1 1 1 $ 40,361.00 12 Al Ard Company for Palestinian Agricultural Products WB Nablus Agriculture Olive Oil M 1 FY6 1 $ 21,000.00 13 Palestinian Center for Agriculture Research and Developme WB Nablus Agriculture Olive Oil M 4 FY2 2 2 $ 403,328.00 14 Canaan Fair Trade WB Jenin Agriculture Olive oil M 10 FY1 2 5 3 $ 506,303.10 15 Daraghmeh Company for Agricultural Production and Medi WB Tubas Agriculture Fresh herbs M 4 FY1 1 3 $ 157,200.00 16 Thimar Al Tabi’a Company for Agricultural Investment and WB Jericho Agriculture Fresh herbs M 6 FY1 3 2 1 $ 287,165.50 17 Haifa Company WB Tubas Agriculture Dried Herbs 1 FY5 1 $ 79,060.00 18 Hamza Abu Thabet WB Jordan Valley Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY6 1 19 Jenin Agricultureal Vegetables Company WB Jenin Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY7 1 $ 69,300.00 20 Al Junaidy Modern Nursery WB Nablus Agriculture Nursery M 1 FY3 1 $ 142,222.00 21 Al Nakheel Nursery WB Jenin Agriculture Nursery M 1 FY5 1 $ 2,400.00 22 Tamer Mohammad Mahmoud Hamdan WB Nablus Agriculture Grapes M 2 FY3 1 1 $ 12,132 23 Ibrahim Abdul Rahman Abdul Jalil Sa'da WB Hebron Agriculture Grapes M 1 FY5 1 $ 1,760.00 24 Akram Mahmoud Abdul Rahman Karajeh WB Hebron Agriculture Grapes M 1 FY5 1 $ 2,200.00 25 Ibrahim Shehadeh Balawneh WB Jordan Valley Agriculture Grapes M 2 FY3 1 1 $ 9,702.45 26 West Bank Salt WB Jericho Agriculture Food Processing M 5 FY1 2 1 1 1 $ 151,072.80 27 Al Salam Company WB Hebron Agriculture Food Processing M 4 FY1 1 1 1 1 $ 322,619.00 28 Nmotion Company for Digital Technology-Nmotion Studios WB Ramallah & Al Bireh ICT Service provider M 1 FY7 1 $ 7,000.00 29 Palestine Polytechnic University WB Hebron ICT Organization M 2 FY5 1 1 $ 119,213.00 30 Infinite Tiers WB Nablus ICT Software Development M 2 FY1 1 1 $ 255,162.00 31 H+W Mena WB Ramallah & Al Bireh ICT Software Development M 4 FY1 1 1 1 1 $ 312,511.50 32 Leaders/ e-Zone WB Ramallah & Al Bireh ICT Startup M 3 FY2 1 1 1 $ 301,363.62 33 Ibdaa'- Intelligent Care System WB Nablus ICT Startup M 1 FY5 1 $ 1,300.00 34 Murad Resort Hotel WB Bethlehem Tourism Hotel M 1 FY4 1 $ 11,152.00 35 Beauty Inn Hotel WB Ramallah & Al Bireh Tourism Hotel M 1 FY5 1 $ 1,168.33 36 AlBader Hotel Company Diamond Hotel WB Bethlehem Tourism Hotel M 1 FY6 1 $ 6,000.00 37 Bandak Tourism & Investment Company “Grand Hotel Beth WB Bethlehem Tourism Hotel F 1 FY5 1 $ 6,408.00 38 Holy Land Incoming Tour Operators Association (HLITOA) WB Bethlehem Tourism Organization F 3 FY2 1 1 1 $ 671,915.35 39 Bethlehem University WB Bethlehem Tourism Organization M 2 FY3 1 1 $ 255,143.85 40 PalClean for Cleaning Services WB Ramallah & Al Bireh Tourism Service provider M 1 FY2 1 $ 52,850.00 41 Alternative Business Solutions/ Visit Palestine WB Bethlehem Tourism Service provider M 1 FY3 1 $ 144,621.43 42 Centre for Cultural Heritage Preservation - CCHP WB Bethlehem .Tourism Service provider M 1 FY1 1 $ 2,244,360.00 43 Handicraft Village - Dar Sabab WB Beit Sahour Tourism Site Renovation F 2 FY6 1 1 $ 492,561.68 44 Rozana Association WB Birzeit Tourism Trail Development M 1 FY2 1 $ 36,670.00 45 Laila Tours and Travels WB Bethlehem Tourism Tour Operator F 3 FY5 3 $ 16,514.00 46 Samara Tourist & Travel Agency WB Jerusalem Tourism Tour Operator F 1 FY2 1 $ 147,985.00 47 Technological Company to Engrave Marble and Granite WB Bethlehem Stone & Marble Decorative Stone M 2 FY5 1 1 $ 245,664.00 48 Abu Kamil Modern Automatic Brick Factory WB Nablus Stone & Marble Environmental stone products M 3 FY3 1 1 1 $ 161,838.00 49 Creative Building Solutions WB Ramallah & Al Bireh Stone & Marble Environmental stone products 2 FY2 1 1 $ 122,635.00 50 H.L Jerusalem Stone & Marble Company WB Hebron Stone & Marble Traditional Stone M 1 FY4 1 $ 18,273.00 51 Sabrin Atef Abdul Qadir AlTaban GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Herbs F 2 FY6 1 1 $ 29,447.00 52 Abdul Fattah Khader Mohammed Al Khatib GS Beit Lahia Agriculture Strawberry M 1 FY5 1 $ 5,298.00 53 Mahmoud Ahmad Saled Ikhlil GS Beit Lahia Agriculture Hanging Strawberry M 1 FY5 1 $ 46,546.00 54 Abdrabbo Abd Abdrabbo Al Tabaan GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Herbs M 2 FY6 1 1 $ 29,447.00 55 Mohammad Mahmoud Mohammad Al Shaar GS Khanyounis Agriculture Potatoes M 1 FY7 1 $ 5,922.00 56 Hamdy Jebril Said Aljerjawi Company GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY6 1 $ 147,668.00 57 Husny Abdallah Shihadeh and Sons Company for General T GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY5 1 $ 133,922.00 58 Sofyan Kuhail Fish Farm GS Gaza Fishing Onshore M 1 FY5 1 $ 150,152.00 59 Fish Fresh GS KhanYunis Fishing Onshore M 1 FY5 1 $ 162,600.00 60 Jaber Brothers Company for Construction and Commerce GS Gaza Garment Garment M 1 FY5 1 $ 70,699.00 61 Hasan Shihadeh and Brothers Company for Industry and Tra GS Gaza Garment Garment M 2 FY5 1 1 $ 28,647.00 62 Al Tariq GS Gaza ICT Software Development M 2 FY2 1 1 $ 220,789.00 63 Ggateway GS Gaza ICT Organization F 1 FY6 1 $ 9,570.95 64 Baskalet Company for Electronic Game Production GS Gaza ICT Startup M 2 FY6 1 1 $ 8,500.00 65 Palestinian Committee for Hotels Restaurants & Touristic S GS Gaza Tourism Organization M 1 FY5 1 $ 29,674.50 No. Start Value of Assistance Years of Assistance Beneficiary Region Governorate Sector Sub-Sector Owner Count of Assitance 97 Annex (D)- Summary Analysis of Compete Data and Sample Selection Considerations No. of Firms/Farms Sector Sub-Sector/VC Total WB GS Min Investment Max Investment Average Investment Total Investment % of total Investment w/in Sector Agriculture Baby Cucumbers 240 240 0 $ 405.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 887.00 $ 212,965.00 2% Agriculture Carrots 5 5 0 $ 2,129.00 $ 547,238.00 $ 130,532.00 $ 652,662.00 5% Agriculture Dates 10 10 0 $ 2,458.00 $ 207,556.00 $ 53,115.00 $ 531,157.00 4% Agriculture Dried Herbs 10 10 0 $ 2,458.00 $ 178,169.00 $ 50,553.00 $ 505,534.00 4% Agriculture Food Processing 5 4 1 $ 4,620.00 $ 151,072.00 $ 48,071.00 $ 240,359.00 2% Agriculture Fresh Herbs 20 20 0 $ 7,200.00 $ 287,165.00 $ 52,796.00 $ 1,055,935.00 8% Agriculture Fresh Produce 47 47 0 $ 9,958.00 $ 417,626.00 $ 101,652.00 $ 813,221.00 6% Agriculture Grapes 440 440 0 $ 1,444.00 $ 34,012.00 $ 3,287.00 $ 1,446,147.00 11% Agriculture Hanging Strawberries 23 21 2 $ 13,786.00 $ 123,267.00 $ 37,347.00 $ 858,989.00 6% Agriculture Herbs 16 0 16 $ 2,439.00 $ 30,998.00 $ 27,621.00 $ 441,940.00 3% Agriculture Lychee 1 1 0 $ 28,922.00 $ 28,922.00 $ 28,922.00 $ 28,922.00 0% Agriculture Meat & Dairy 7 7 0 $ 18,900.00 $ 55,588.00 $ 28,426.00 $ 198,988.00 1% Agriculture Mushroom 1 1 0 $ 164,947.00 $ 164,947.00 $ 164,947.00 $ 164,947.00 1% Agriculture Nureseries 7 7 0 $ 2,400.00 $ 163,709.00 $ 74,218.00 $ 371,091.00 3% Agriculture Olives 65 65 0 $ 2,077.00 $ 506,303.00 $ 16,779.00 $ 1,090,670.00 8% Agriculture Agri. Organizations 3 3 0 $ 45,818.00 $ 124,743.00 $ 86,318.00 $ 258,954.00 2% Agriculture Post Harvest 7 2 5 $ 69,300.00 $ 149,700.00 $ 124,836.00 $ 749,020.00 6% Agriculture Potato 62 6 56 $ 3,948.00 $ 364,825.00 $ 27,627.00 $ 1,712,876.00 13% Agriculture Service Providers 6 6 0 $ 2,400.00 $ 203,019.00 $ 79,512.00 $ 477,075.00 4% Agriculture Strawberries 85 0 85 $ 4,301.00 $ 5,382.00 $ 4,585.00 $ 389,775.00 3% Agriculture Sweet Potato 7 0 7 $ 14,535.00 $ 14,535.00 $ 14,535.00 $ 101,745.00 1% Agriculture Treated Waste Water 9 9 0 $ 14,616.00 $ 382,112.00 $ 74,688.00 $ 672,198.00 5% Agriculture Vegetables 145 2 143 $ 900.00 $ 11,050.00 $ 2,182.00 $ 316,515.00 2% Agriculture Total 1221 906 315 $ 405.00 $ 547,238.00 $ 10,885.90 $ 13,291,685.00 100% 98 Fishing On-Shore 4 0 4 $ 50,500.00 $ 162,600.00 $ 116,488.00 $ 465,952.00 98% Fishing Off-Shore 1 0 1 $ 7,125.00 $ 7,125.00 $ 7,125.00 $ 7,125.00 2% Fishing Total 5 0 5 $ 7,125.00 $ 162,600.00 $ 94,615.40 $ 473,077.00 100% Garment Garment 33 0 33 $ 1,800.00 $ 70,699.00 $ 20,185.00 $ 624,467.00 100% Garment Total 33 0 33 $ 1,800.00 $ 70,699.00 $ 20,185.00 $ 624,467.00 100% ICT Organizations 4 3 1 $ 9,570.00 $ 412,066.00 $ 167,696.00 $ 838,483.00 22% ICT Service Providers 7 1 6 $ 4,130.00 $ 24,925.00 $ 12,466.00 $ 87,122.00 2% ICT Software Developers 33 25 8 $ 900.00 $ 312,511.00 $ 59,159.00 $ 1,952,263.00 51% ICT Startups 75 68 7 $ 750.00 $ 301,363.00 $ 36,491.00 $ 985,264.00 26% ICT Total 119 97 22 $ 750.00 $ 412,066.00 $ 32,463.29 $ 3,863,132.00 100% Toursim Hotels 75 74 1 $ 1,168.00 $ 14,738.00 $ 3,014.00 $ 226,117.00 2% Toursim Organizations 8 7 1 $ 29,674.00 $ 671,915.00 $ 264,721.00 $ 1,853,050.00 18% Toursim Retsaurants 3 0 3 $ 7,140.00 $ 12,200.00 $ 9,223.00 $ 27,670.00 0% Toursim Service Providers 4 4 0 $ 52,850.00 $ 2,244,360.00 $ 659,544.00 $ 2,638,179.00 26% Toursim Site Rennovation 24 24 0 $ 36,670.00 $ 517,124.00 $ 203,265.00 $ 4,878,364.00 48% Toursim Tour Operators 12 12 0 $ 2,800.00 $ 147,985.00 $ 43,565.00 $ 566,346.00 6% Toursim Total 126 121 5 $ 1,168.00 $ 2,244,360.00 $ 80,870.84 $ 10,189,726.00 100% Stone & Marble Decorative Stone 8 8 0 $ 1,990.00 $ 245,664.00 $ 94,633.00 $ 757,086.00 35% Stone & Marble Environmental Stone 16 16 0 $ 1,294.00 $ 161,838.00 $ 24,070.00 $ 385,135.00 18% Stone & Marble Organizations 1 1 0 $ 23,585.00 $ 23,585.00 $ 23,585.00 $ 23,585.00 1% Stone & Marble Service Providers 1 1 0 $ 109,041.00 $ 109,041.00 $ 109,041.00 $ 109,041.00 5% Stone & Marble Traditional Stone 20 20 0 $ 438.00 $ 297,913.00 $ 45,110.00 $ 902,213.00 41% Stone & Marble Total 46 46 0 $ 438.00 $ 297,913.00 $ 47,327.39 $ 2,177,060.00 100% TOTAL 1550 1170 380 99 Basis of sample calculation: Total Number of working days Team is in-country: 29; Total planning, analysis and de-briefing days: 9; Total days available for field-visits and meetings: 20, of which about 5 are for travel and meetings with DAI/USIAD/Stakeholders; Total days available for field work: 15. With a total of ~15 field work days for 2 consultants @ 3 firms per day each (assumes that we will split up and to allow for other interviews), we can plan on visiting ~62 firms/farmers (WB: 46; GS:16). Based on above, these could be broken down as follows Sector Number of sub-sectors WB GS Total % of total firms/farmers supported WB GS Total % of total Contribution Agriculture 23 906 315 1,221 79% $ 10,922,980.00 $ 2,368,706.00 $ 13,291,686.00 43% Fishing 2 0 5 5 0% $ - $ 473,077.00 $ 473,077.00 2% Garment 1 0 33 33 2% $ - $ 624,467.00 $ 624,467.00 2% ICT 4 97 22 119 8% $ 3,369,580.00 $ 493,551.00 $ 3,863,132.00 13% Tourism 6 121 5 126 8% $ 10,128,742.00 $ 60,984.00 $ 10,189,726.00 33% Stone & Marble 5 46 0 46 3% $ 2,177,060.00 $ 2,177,060.00 7% Total 41 1170 380 1,550 100% $ 26,598,362.00 $ 4,020,785.00 $ 30,619,148.00 100% Note: in ICT one company is in Israel bringing the total to 127. Sector WB GS Total WB GS Total Agriculture 74% 26% 100% 82% 18% 100% Fishing 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% Garment 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% ICT 82% 18% 100% 87% 13% 100% WB GS Total Tourism 96% 4% 100% 99% 1% 100% 75% 25% 100% Stone & Marble 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% Total 75% 25% 100% 87% 13% 100% Sector WB GS Total WB GS Total Sector WB GS Total Agriculture 77% 83% 100% 41% 59% 100% Agriculture 50% 50% 49% Fishing 0% 1% 100% 0% 12% 100% Fishing 0% 15% 4% Garment 0% 9% 100% 0% 16% 100% Garment 0% 15% 5% ICT 8% 6% 100% 13% 12% 100% ICT 15% 15% 15% Tourism 10% 1% 100% 38% 2% 100% Tourism 30% 5% 23% Stone & Marble 4% 0% 100% 8% 0% 100% Stone & Marble 5% 0% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% No. of Firms/Farmers Supported Total AID Investment Percentag of Firms/Farmers Supported within Region Prcentage Distribution of AID Investment within Region Regional Distribution of firms Regional Distribution of AID Investment Regional Distribution of firms For Sampling Percentag of Firms/Farmers Supported within Region to be Sampled sample consideration sample consideration 100 Sector WB GS Agriculture 25 8 Fishing 0 2 Garment 0 2 ICT 6 3 Tourism 12 1 Stone & Marble 3 0 Total 46 16 VCs Number to be sampled VCs Number to be sampled Baby Cucumbers 2 Strawberries 2 Carrots 2 Herbs 2 Potato 3 Potato 2 Hangining Strawberies 2 Hangining Strawberies 0 Olives 3 Olives 0 Fresh Herbs 3 Fresh Herbs 0 Post Harvest 2 Post Harvest 2 Nurseries 2 Nurseries 0 Grapes 4 Grapes 0 Food Processing 2 Food Processing 0 Total 25 Total 8 On-Shore 0 On-Shore 1 Off-Shore 0 Off-Shore 1 Total 0 Total 2 Garment 0 Garment 2 Total 0 Total 2 Organizations 1 Organizations 0 Service Providers 1 Service Providers 1 Software Developers 2 Software Developers 1 Startups 2 Startups 1 Total 6 Total 3 Hotels 3 Hotels 0 Organizations 2 Organizations 1 Retsaurants 0 Retsaurants 0 Service Providers 3 Service Providers 0 Site Rennovation 2 Site Rennovation 0 Tour Operators 2 Tour Operators 0 Total 12 Total 1 Decorative Stone 1 Decorative Stone 0 Environmental Stone 1 Environmental Stone 0 Organizations 0 Organizations 0 Service Providers 0 Service Providers 0 Traditional Stone 1 Traditional Stone 0 Total 3 Total 0 TOTAL 46 16 Agriculture Sector WB GS Toursim Stone & Marble Fishing Garment ICT Representation criteria to be applied in selecting Farmers/Companies 1) Value of Investment (low, average, and high) 2) Geographic Distribution within regions to extent possible 3) Year of support (ensuring that at least 60% of the firms/farmers selected have received support after MTR) 4) Representation of the various forms of assistance provided (workforce development, techincal assiatnce, equipment, etc..) 101 Planned Evaluation Sample Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 1 Imad Mohammed Ahmad Bsharat WB Tubas Agriculture Baby Cucumber M 1 FY5 1 $ 2,400.00 2 Ayda Shihadeh Ahmad Salahat WB Tubas Agriculture Baby Cucumber F 1 FY6 1 $ 405.00 3 Tubas Company for Packaging and Marketing Agricultural Products " TUPACK" WB Tubas Agriculture Carrots M 2 FY3 2 $ 547,238.16 5 Al Furat Agricultural Co. (Mwaffaq Daraghmeh) WB Tubas Agriculture Potatoes M 5 FY1 2 1 1 1 $ 201,988.80 7 Al Far'a and Albuqe'a Farm WB Tubas Agriculture Potatoes M 2 FY2 1 1 $ 112,156.73 8 Osama Abu Al Rub WB Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry M 3 FY3 1 1 1 $ 123,267.00 9 Farmer Khaled Mohammed Yassin Abu Al rob WB Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry M 1 FY5 1 $ 13,786.95 10 Al Ard Company for Palestinian Agricultural Products WB Nablus Agriculture Olive Oil M 1 FY6 1 $ 21,000.00 11 Palestinian Center for Agriculture Research and Development/ Near East Foundation WB Nablus Agriculture Olive Oil M 4 FY2 2 2 $ 403,328.00 12 Canaan Fair Trade WB Jenin Agriculture Olive oil M 10 FY1 2 5 3 $ 506,303.10 13 Daraghmeh Company for Agricultural Production and Medical Herbs WB Tubas Agriculture Fresh herbs M 4 FY1 1 3 $ 157,200.00 14 Thimar Al Tabi’a Company for Agricultural Investment and Marketing - Thimar/ Imad Nseibeh WB Jericho Agriculture Fresh herbs M 6 FY1 3 2 1 $ 287,165.50 15 Majdi Daraghmeh WB Tubas Agriculture Fresh herbs M 1 FY2 1 $ 13,350.00 16 Hamza Abu Thabet WB Jordan Valley Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY6 1 17 Jenin Agricultureal Vegetables Company WB Jenin Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY7 1 $ 69,300.00 18 Al Junaidy Modern Nursery WB Nablus Agriculture Nursery M 1 FY3 1 $ 142,222.00 19 Al Nakheel Nursery WB Jenin Agriculture Nursery M 1 FY5 1 $ 2,400.00 20 Abd Al Malek Al Jaber farm WB Jericho Agriculture Grapes M 2 FY1 1 1 $ 34,012.45 21 Ibrahim Abdul Rahman Abdul Jalil Sa'da WB Hebron Agriculture Grapes M 1 FY5 1 $ 1,760.00 22 Akram Mahmoud Abdul Rahman Karajeh WB Hebron Agriculture Grapes M 1 FY5 1 $ 2,200.00 23 Ibrahim Shehadeh Balawneh WB Jordan Valley Agriculture Grapes M 2 FY3 1 1 $ 9,702.45 24 West Bank Salt WB Jericho Agriculture Food Processing M 5 FY1 2 1 1 1 $ 151,072.80 25 Al Qasrawi Industrial & Trading Co. ltd WB Hebron Agriculture Food Processing M 4 FY2 1 1 1 1 $ 55,834.10 26 Nmotion Company for Digital Technology-Nmotion Studios WB Ramallah & Al Bireh ICT Service provider M 1 FY7 1 $ 7,000.00 27 Palestine Polytechnic University WB Hebron ICT Organization M 2 FY5 1 1 $ 119,213.00 28 Infinite Tiers WB Nablus ICT Software Development M 2 FY1 1 1 $ 255,162.00 29 H+W Mena WB Ramallah & Al Bireh ICT Software Development M 4 FY1 1 1 1 1 $ 312,511.50 30 Leaders/ e-Zone WB Ramallah & Al Bireh ICT Startup M 3 FY2 1 1 1 $ 301,363.62 31 Ibdaa'- Intelligent Care System WB Nablus ICT Startup M 1 FY5 1 $ 1,300.00 32 Murad Resort Hotel WB Bethlehem Tourism Hotel M 1 FY4 1 $ 11,152.00 33 Beauty Inn Hotel WB Ramallah & Al Bireh Tourism Hotel M 1 FY5 1 $ 1,168.33 34 AlBader Hotel Company Diamond Hotel WB Bethlehem Tourism Hotel M 1 FY6 1 $ 6,000.00 35 Holy Land Incoming Tour Operators Association (HLITOA) WB Bethlehem Tourism Organization F 3 FY2 1 1 1 $ 671,915.35 36 Bethlehem Municipality WB Bethlehem Tourism Organization M 1 FY5 1 $ 54,456.00 37 PalClean for Cleaning Services WB Ramallah & Al Bireh Tourism Service provider M 1 FY2 1 $ 52,850.00 38 Alternative Business Solutions/ Visit Palestine WB Bethlehem Toursim Service provider M 1 FY3 1 $ 144,621.43 39 Centre for Cultural Heritage Preservation - CCHP WB Bethlehem .Tourism Service provider M 1 FY1 1 $ 2,244,360.00 40 Handicraft Village - Dar Sabab WB Beit Sahour Tourism Site Renovation F 2 FY6 1 1 $ 492,561.68 41 Abraham's Path WB Bethlehem Tourism Site Renovation M 1 FY3 1 $ 36,670.00 42 Laila Tours and Travels WB Bethlehem Tourism Tour Operator F 3 FY5 3 $ 16,514.00 43 Samara Tourist & Travel Agency WB Jerusalem Tourism Tour Operator F 1 FY2 1 $ 147,985.00 44 Technological Company to Engrave Marble and Granite WB Bethlehem Stone & Marble Decorative Stone M 2 FY5 1 1 $ 245,664.00 45 Abu Kamil Modern Automatic Brick Factory WB Nablus Stone & Marble Environmental stone products M 3 FY3 1 1 1 $ 161,838.00 46 H.L Jerusalem Stone & Marble Company WB Hebron Stone & Marble Traditional Stone M 1 FY4 1 $ 18,273.00 48 Mohammed Mousa Naji Al Shahhad GS Beit Lahia Agriculture Strawberry M 1 FY5 1 $ 5,243.00 50 Abdrabbo Abd Abdrabbo Al Tabaan GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Herbs M 2 FY6 1 1 $ 29,447.00 51 Mohammad Mahmoud Mohammad Al Shaar GS Khanyounis Agriculture Potatoes M 1 FY7 1 $ 5,922.00 53 Hamdy Jebril Said Aljerjawi Company GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY6 1 $ 147,668.00 54 Husny Abdallah Shihadeh and Sons Company for General Trading GS Deir Al Balah Agriculture Post Harvest M 1 FY5 1 $ 133,922.00 55 Ahmed Suliman Abonaja and Partners for General Trading and Contracting Company GS KhanYunis Fishing Offshore M 1 FY5 1 $ 7,125.00 56 Fish Fresh GS KhanYunis Fishing Onshore M 1 FY5 1 $ 162,600.00 57 Jaber Brothers Company for Construction and Commerce GS Gaza Garment Garment M 1 FY5 1 $ 70,699.00 58 Naser Ayyad and Partners Company GS Gaza Garment Garment M 1 FY6 1 $ 38,800.00 60 Al Tariq GS Gaza ICT Software Development M 2 FY2 1 1 $ 220,789.00 61 Baskalet Company for Electronic Game Production GS Gaza ICT Startup M 2 FY6 1 1 $ 8,500.00 62 Palestinian Committee for Hotels Restaurants & Touristic Services GS Gaza Tourism Organization M 1 FY5 1 $ 29,674.50 No. Start Value of Assistance Years of Assistance Beneficiary Region Governorate Sector Sub-Sector Owner Count of Assitance 102 Annex (E)- Mapping of key ongoing donor programs and projects Program/Project Donor Lifetime Implementing Partner(s) Brief description Sectors targeted Palestinian Market Development Program (PMDP) DfID and EU 2014-2018 DAI Europe PMDP has been designed to improve market systems and improve the competitiveness of the Palestinian private sector. It aims to improve private sector competitiveness through technical assistance and matching grants. PMDP also aims to strengthen trade and investment linkages as well as linkages with. the Palestinian Diaspora to play an active role in economic development in the OPTs. Key outputs are: • Improved private sector Skills and innovation. • Market system failures in specific sectors analyzed and addressed to facilitate improved performance and value chain integration and sharing of knowledge and best practice. • Trade and investment linkages with international markets improved. Agriculture, ICT, Tourism, Furniture. Market Development Program in the West Bank and Gaza: Developing equitable agricultural production and market systems for resilient economic development in the occupied Palestinian territory SIDA 2015-2019 Oxfam This is a four-year program that aims to facilitate the development of a market model to attract increased investment into small-scale agriculture and simultaneously improve incomes for women and men small-scale producers (SSPs), synthesizing commercial business development with poverty reduction. The program interventions are planned to directly benefit 5,000-6,000 producers, while also facilitating systematic improvements in production, processing, and marketing systems of targeted value chains. The program has five inter-related outcomes: (1): Small-scale agricultural production systems are more productive and resilient, with more visible influencing power of women producers. (2): Market channels for small-scale producers are more transparent, inclusive and fair. (3): More inclusive and enabling policies and plans, including local economic development plans, to stimulate investment and enable better functioning small-scale agricultural production and market systems are put in place. (4): Key policies, imposed by the Government of Israel (GoI) that are in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and that hinder small-scale agriculture are challenged by international stakeholders. (5): Capacities of local partners and relevant sector organizations to undertake pro-poor market agricultural development are strengthened and are more resilient. Agriculture and food processing Australian Middle East NGO Cooperation Agreement (AMENCA 3): Palestinian Farmers Connecting to Markets Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) 2016-2020 Oxfam, APHEDA, and Care International AMENCA 3 aims to make agriculture a driver of economic growth, by increasing the productivity and competitiveness, and thus the income, of Palestinian farmers. It aims to achieve this objective through engagement with the private sector. Accordingly, the program focuses on achieving an increase in the market readiness of women and men, as well as the development of a more sustainable and profitable value chain by farmers. AMENCA 3 also has a focus on developing a more viable business model to ensure supply is able to effectively reach the market. The program seeks to utilize Agriculture 103 Program/Project Donor Lifetime Implementing Partner(s) Brief description Sectors targeted agriculture as a tool to strengthen the community fabric, by adopting a community￾based approach, with a specific desired outcome that will see women and youth being economically empowered. Improved Access to Markets for Female and Male Fresh Fruits and Vegetable (FFV) Small Scale Producers SDC and DANIDA 2017-2021 Oxfam With focus on private sector-led agriculture and agribusiness, this program pursues systemic change in the agriculture sector and supports business modalities that favor small-scale producers in the occupied Palestinian territory. The overall goal is to contribute to build a resilient economy with equitable agricultural growth, whilst contributing to protect small-scale producers’ entitlements to natural resources and access to markets. Agriculture Reform and Development of Markets, Value Chains and Producers’ Organizations Co-financed by SDC, EU, the Netherlands Representative Office (NRO), Denmark (DANIDA) and Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) 2017-2021 FAO This program aims at improving income and productivity in the agriculture sector, through improved access to markets, increased share of local market, enhanced competitiveness and profitability of Palestinian agribusinesses. Agriculture Market-oriented and sustainable high value crops development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Netherlands Representative Office 2013-2018 FAO This program aims to sustainably improve the capacities and self-reliance of small￾and medium-scale farmers to cultivate, market and export high value crops (HVCs) in order to compete in national and international markets. Agriculture Palestinian Land Development and High Value Crops project FAO Netherlands Representative Office 2017-2021 FAO This project follows a value chain and market development approach to improve the competitiveness and market readiness of Palestinian producers in the agricultural sector. Agriculture A.Support to the Development of Cultural Tourism EU 2014-2018 UNDP The overall objective of this program is to contribute to national economic growth through developing the Palestinian tourism sector by revitalizing cultural infrastructure and increasing Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). More specifically, the program aims to: contribute towards conserving and protecting cultural infrastructure; improve the potential for cultural, eco-tourism and creative industries for an inclusive economic growth; raise awareness of the local communities about the importance of cultural heritage; provide job opportunities mainly for young professionals and women (craftsmanship, tourism and cultural management), and improved engagement with the local private sector; and increase the number of tourists and visitors in addition to adding new touristic routes with the new concept of connecting the landscape with the environmental, archaeological sites and historical buildings. Tourism 104 Program/Project Donor Lifetime Implementing Partner(s) Brief description Sectors targeted B. Digital Economy Program 2016-2019 Mercy Corps In partnership with Oasis 500, a leading investment organization in the region, this program is working to develop Gaza as an innovative tech hub by providing funding and mentorship to local Gazans with startup dreams. The program builds on past work implemented by Mercy Corps to bring training, start-up weekends and hardware resources to young Gazans. Through the business accelerator Gaza Sky Geeks, startup teams receive seed money from Oasis 500, in addition to participating in several months of intensive training before having a chance to pitch outside investors. ICT 105 Annex (F)- Field Work Schedule # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 1 Kufr Dan Cooperative Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber Mohammad Fehmi Nimr Marei Sun 2 2 Shiraz Adel Ghalib Maree Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber Shiraz Adel Ghalib Maree Sun 1 3 Mahmoud Saleh Mounir Abed Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber Mahmoud Saleh Mounir Abed Sun 1 4 Jamal Fahmi Miri' Non￾Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Baby Cucumber Jamal Fahmi Miri' Sun 1 5 Al Nakheel Nursery Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Nursery Mohammed Zayyod Sun 1 6 Osama Abu Al Rub Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry Osama Abu Al Rob Sun 1 7 Khaled Mohammed Yassin Abu Al rob Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry Khaled Abu Al Rob Sun 1 8 Raeda Hasan Mohammed Assous Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Hanging Strawberry Raeda Hasan Mohammed Assous Mon 2 9 Canaan Fair Trade Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Olive oil Ahmad Abu Farha Mon 1 10 Jenin Agricultureal Vegetables Company Beneficiary Jenin Agriculture Post Harvest Allam Taher Khalouf Mon 1 11 Al Furat Agricultural Co. Beneficiary Tubas Agriculture Potatoes Mwaffaq Daraghmeh Mon 1 12 Tubas Company for Packaging and Marketing Agricultural Products " TUPACK" Beneficiary Tubas Agriculture Carrots Farouq Abdelrazek Mon 1 13 Daraghmeh Company for Agricultural Production and Medical Herbs Beneficiary Tubas Agriculture Fresh herbs Mohammad Abu Khaizran Mon 1 106 # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 14 Haifa Company (Aqqaba) Beneficiary Tubas Agriculture Dried Herbs Sulaiman Abu Yousef Tue 1 15 Al Far'a and Albuqe'a Farm Beneficiary Tubas Agriculture Potatoes Abd Alhakeem Mustafa Abdelrazek Tue 1 16 Atoofco Company for Trade Agricultural Products Beneficiary Tubas Agriculture Carrots Younis Bani Odeh Tue 1 17 Ibrahim Shehadeh Balawneh Beneficiary Jordan Valley Agriculture Grapes Ibrahim Shihadeh Tue 1 18 Tamer Mohammad Mahmoud Hamdan Beneficiary Nablus Agriculture Grapes Tamer Mohammad Mahmoud Hamdan Tue 1 19 Hamza Abu Thabet Beneficiary Jordan Valley Agriculture Post Harvest Hamza Abu Thabet Tue 1 20 Abu Kamil Modern Automatic Brick Factory Beneficiary Nablus Stone & Marble Environmental stone products Kamil Abdelmajid Ahmad Hasan Aqel Wed 1 21 Al Ard Company for Palestinian Agricultural Products Beneficiary Nablus Agriculture Olive Oil Subhi Anabtawi Wed 1 22 Al Junaidy Modern Nursery (Deir Sharaf after Anabtawi Beneficiary Nablus Agriculture Nursery Samir Hasan Husain Yasin Wed 1 23 Palestinian Center for Agriculture Research and Development/ Near East Foundation Beneficiary Nablus Agriculture Olive Oil Salah Abu Eisheh & Faris Al-Jabi Wed 2 24 Infinite Tiers Beneficiary Nablus ICT Software Develop ment Ahmed Aqel Wed 1 25 Ibdaa'- Intelligent Care System Beneficiary Nablus ICT Startup Rasem Suwan Wed 1 26 Palestine Polytechnic University Beneficiary Hebron ICT Organization Makawi Diab Makawi Hraiz, Loai Shaheen, Samir Khader Thu 3 27 Al Salam Company Beneficiary Hebron Agriculture Food Processing Wajdi Natsheh Thu 3 107 # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 28 Ibrahim Abdul Rahman Abdul Jalil Sa'da Beneficiary Hebron Agriculture Grapes Ibrahim Sa'da Thu 1 29 Akram Mahmoud Abdul Rahman Karajeh Beneficiary Hebron Agriculture Grapes Akram Mahmoud Abdul Rahman Karajeh Thu 1 30 Leaders/ e-Zone Beneficiary Ramallah ICT Startup Shadi Mahmoud Khalil Atshan, Nidal Zahran Thu 2 31 H+W Mena Beneficiary Ramallah ICT Software Develop ment Firas Al-Zaghal Mon 1 32 Nmotion Company for Digital Technology￾Nmotion Studios Beneficiary Ramallah ICT Service Provider Baseem Mayala Mon 1 33 PalClean for Cleaning Services Beneficiary Ramallah Tourism Service Provider Tariq Ghosheh Mon 1 34 Bandak Tourism & Investment Company “Grand Hotel Bethlehem” Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Hotels Duha Bandak Tue 1 35 AlBader Hotel Company Diamond Hotel Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Hotels Sameer Musallam, Rima Halabi, Abeer Nassar Tue 3 36 Center for Cultural Heritage Preservation - CCHP Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Service Provider Issam Juha, Luma Qumseya Tue 2 37 Icon School Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Site Rennovation Nikola Juha Tue 1 38 Peace By Piece Tours Beneficiary Beit Sahour Tourism Site Rennovation Osama Awwad, Ra'fat Shomali, Rana Salman Tue 3 39 Technological Company to Engrave Marble and Granite Beneficiary Bethlehem Stone & Marble Decorative Stone Nejib Khalil Nejib Nasser Wed 1 40 USAID Program team USAID Jerusalem Donor Donor Tayseer Edeas Wed 6 41 Murad Resoirt Hotel Beneficiary Dar Salah Tourism Hotels Jamil Murad, Laila Abu Hadba Wed 2 108 # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 42 Handicraft Village - Dar Sabab Beneficiary Beit Sahour Tourism Site Rennovation Ibrahim Shu'aibat, Nivin Awad Wed 2 43 Ministry of Agriculture Government Ramallah Government Ministry of Ag Isam Nofal Wed 1 44 Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities Government Bethlehem Government Government Ihab Daoud, Sami Abu Arqoub, Ruwaida Jaber Wed 3 45 COMPETE DAI Ramallah Project Team Project Team Imad Qamhawi, Mira Estephan, and Caroline Denman, Said Abu Hijleh Thu 4 46 Creative Building Solutions Beneficiary Ramallah Stone & Marble Environmental stone products Ammar Mousa Hanna Ammar, Joyce Ilyas Jubran-Ammar Thu 2 47 USAID USAID Jerusalem Donor Donor Matthew Hutcherson Fri 5 48 EC Donor Jerusalem Donor Donor Ricardo Rossi, Rateb Radi, Joaqim??? Fri 3 49 Oxfam INGO Ramallah NGO NGO Mohammad Sawafta Sun 1 50 USAID Mid term debrief USAID Tel Aviv Donor Donor Mon 11 51 Al Tariq Beneficiary Gaza ICT Software Develop ment Tarek Eslim Tue 1 52 Jaber Brothers Company for Construction and Commerce Beneficiary Gaza Garment Garment Marwan Jabr, Ismail Jabr Tue 2 53 Hasan Shihadeh and Brothers Company for Industry and Trading LTD Beneficiary Gaza Garment Garment Hasan Shihadeh, Mohammad Shihadeh Tue 2 54 Abdul Fattah Khader Mohammed Al Khatib Beneficiary Beit Lahia Agriculture Strawberry Abdul Fattah Al Khatib Tue 1 55 Mahmoud Ahmad Saled Ikhlil Beneficiary Beit Lahia Agriculture Hanging Strawberry Mahmoud Ikhlil Tue 1 109 # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 56 Sabrin Atef Abdul Qadir AlTaban Beneficiary Deir Al Balah Agriculture Herbs Bassem Al-Tabaan Wed 1 57 Abdrabbo Abd Abdrabbo Al Tabaan Beneficiary Deir Al Balah Agriculture Herbs Abdrabbo Al Tabaan Wed 1 58 Golden Gate Tours Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Tour Operator Richard Elias Wed 1 59 Husny Abdallah Shihadeh and Sons Company for General Trading Beneficiary Deir Al Balah Agriculture Post Harvest Ashraf Husni Shehada, Ibrahim Bashir, Yousef Matar, and 3 drivers Wed 6 60 Alternative Business Solutions/ Visit Palestine & HILTOA (2 Organizations) Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Service Provider Sami Basem Khoury Wed 1 61 Hamdy Jebril Said Aljerjawi Company Beneficiary Deir Al Balah Agriculture Post Harvest Hamdy Jebril Al-Jerjawi Wed 1 62 Bethlehem University Beneficiary Bethlehem Tourism Organization Hassan Costantini, Mousa Rabadi, Nabeel Mufdi Wed 3 63 Ameena Hasan Madi Beneficiary Rafah Agriculture Potatoes Issam Madi, Tahsin Madi Wed 2 64 Mohammad Mahmoud Mohammad Al Shaar Beneficiary Khanyounis Agriculture Potatoes Mohammad Al Shaar Wed 1 65 Fish Fresh Beneficiary KhanYunis Fishing Onshore Khaled Sarhan Wed 1 66 PMDP DAI Gaza Implementing Partner Project Team Halim Halabi, Hajar Masoud Wed 2 67 Sofyan Kuhail Fish Farm Beneficiary Gaza Fishing Onshore Suhail Kuhail Thu 1 68 Ggateway Beneficiary Gaza ICT Organization/ICT Rasha Abu Safieh Thu 1 69 Palestinian Committee for Hotels Restaurants & Touristic Services Beneficiary Gaza Tourism Organization/Tou rism Samir Salim Skaik, Salah Abu Hasira, Wa'el Elshurafa, Muna Ghalayini Thu 4 110 # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 70 Beauty Inn Hotel Beneficiary Ramallah Tourism Hotels Nazih Dahdal Thu 1 71 Baskalet Company for Electronic Game Production Beneficiary Gaza ICT Startup/ICT Mohammad Al madhoun Thu 1 72 Compete (Sector Leads) DAI Gaza Project Team Project Team Basel Abu Daka, Ali Saqa, Salah Skaik, Basem Al-Ashi Thu 4 73 El-Wafa El-Wafa Gaza M&E Service Provider Team Mohammad Abu Lamzi, Ala' Elshurafa, Ibrahim Elshatri Thu 3 74 PICTI IT Association Gaza ICT Organization Abdallah Tahrawi Thu 1 75 West Bank Salt Beneficiary Jericho Agriculture Food Processing Hussam Othman Hussain Hallak Sun 1 76 Rozana Association Beneficiary Jerusalem Tourism Trail Development Raed Saadeh Sun 1 77 PMDP DAI Ramallah Implementing Partner Implementing Partner Maher Hamdan, Mohammad Nuseeibeh Mon 2 78 Ministry of National Economy Government Ramallah Government Government Abeer Odeh, Fadi Abdel Latif Mon 2 79 Samara Tourist & Travel Agency Beneficiary Jerusalem Tourism Tour Operator Christina Khamees Samara - Kandalaft Mon 1 80 FAO UN Jerusalem UN UN Ciro Fiorillo, Azzam Saleh Mon 2 81 PALTRADE Beneficiary Ramallah Support Org Support Org Hanan Taha, Yousef Lahham Tue 2 82 SDC Donor Ramallah Donor Donor Ayman Daraghmeh Tue 1 83 Compete (M&E Manager ) DAI Ramallah Project Team Project Team Rozana Salim Tue 1 111 # Stakeholders Name Stakeholder Category Governorat e Sector Sub-Sector Contact Person Day # of part￾icipants 84 DfID Jerusalem Donor Donor Sidney Augustin and Zack Sabella Wed 2 85 Briefing to USAID WBG Mission Director Ramallah Donor Donor USAID Mission Director Wed 6 86 Final Debrief- USAID Tel Aviv Donor Donor Fri 10 Total 166 112 Annex (G)- Compete Component A and Component B Results Framework performance measurement, PMP Indicators and Measurement KRA Indicator Years Baseline LOP target LOP Achievement Dropped Captured somewhere else IR 1- Exports and Investment Increased Increased revenues for Palestinian firms Percent increase in sales of assisted Palestinian agribusiness firms Y1-Y6 Yes No No No No Percent increase in sales of assisted Palestinian Information and Communication Technology (ICT) firms Y1-Y6 No No No No No Percent increase in sales of assisted Palestinian stone and marble firms Y1-Y6 Yes No No No No Percent increase of sales of assisted Palestinian tourism firms Y5 Yes No No Yes No, no act.to feed this indicator and in decline business Percent increase in sales of assisted Palestinian fishing firms Y5-Y6 Yes No No No No Percent increase in sales of assisted Palestinian textile and garment firms Y5-Y6 Yes No No No No Improved image of Palestinian products and services in local market places No Related Indicators Increased added value by Palestinian for products exported to Israel and Percent increase in exports of assisted Palestinian agribusiness firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, value of exports Value of exports of targeted agricultural commodities as a result of USG assistance Y1-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Percent increase in exports of assisted Palestinian Information and Communication Technology (ICT) firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, value of exports Value of exports of targeted ICT firms as a result of USG assistance Y4-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Percent increase in exports of assisted Palestinian stone and marble firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, value of exports 113 KRA Indicator Years Baseline LOP target LOP Achievement Dropped Captured somewhere else Value of exports through group and specialized Palestinian stone and marble marketing companies and consortia Y2-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Percent increase in exports of assisted Palestinian Tourism Firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Value of exports of targeted textile and garment firms as a result of USG assistance Y5-Y6 No Yes Yes No No No indicator for Fishing Exports Increased market share for Palestinian products and services in WBG Domestic sales= Total Sales-Exports Increased number of international markets for Palestinian products and services Number of new markets accessed by assisted Palestinian agribusiness firms Y1-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Number of new markets accessed by assisted Palestinian Information and Communication Technology (ICT) firms Y1-Y6 No No Yes No No Number of new markets accessed by assisted Palestinian stone and marble firms Y1-Y6 NA No Yes No No Improved number, reliability and dependability of the relationships between Palestinian firms and Israeli and International firms Number of new Information and Communication Technology (ICT) contracts executed with international buyers/firms for Palestinian products or services Y1-Y4 No Yes Yes Yes No Number of new agribusiness contracts executed with international buyers/firms for Palestinian products or services Y1-Y4 NA Yes Yes Yes No No sufficient indicators for measurement 114 KRA Indicator Years Baseline LOP target LOP Achievement Dropped Captured somewhere else IR 2- Innovation of products and services improved Increase in both new and improved Palestinian products and services 4.5.2(2): Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance Y1-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Number of new or improved Palestinian products produced by assisted Palestinian agribusiness firms Y1-Y6 NA Yes Yes No No Number of New ICT Start-up companies established Y1-Y6 NA Yes Yes No No Number of ICT assisted start-ups that have developed products or signed contracts Y1-Y6 NA Yes Yes No No Number of new or improved assisted tourism sites and tourism trails Y2-Y6 NA Yes Yes No No Percent of hotels adopting mandatory hotel classification system Y2-Y5 Yes Yes Yes No Measurement stopped in Y6 Number of Palestinian tourism and hospitality establishments adopting new technology and tools. (such as booking platforms, payment gateways, market access information and corporate social media presence) Y1-Y3 No No No Yes No, set to capture new technology and tools, and have been already captured before! Number of Palestinian stone and marble firms adopting new technologies or investing in new equipment Y2 No No No Yes No Number of innovations supported through USG assistance with demonstrated uptake by the public and / or private sector Y6 No Yes Yes No No Increase in the quality of Palestinian products No Related Indicators Improved image of Palestinian products and services in local market places No Related Indicators Demonstration effects being replicated at equal or higher levels without further project support No Related Indicators 115 KRA Indicator Years Baseline LOP target LOP Achievement Dropped Captured somewhere else IR 3- Employment increased, job skills expanded Increased employment in firms targeted by the Compete project Percent increase in employment of assisted Palestinian agribusiness firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, # of new jobs created; not disaggregated by sector in the PMP Percent increase in employment of assisted Palestinian Information and Communication Technology (ICT) firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, # of new jobs created; not disaggregated by sector in the PMP Percent increase in employment of assisted Palestinian tourism firms Y1-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, # of new jobs created; not disaggregated by sector in the PMP Percent increase in employment of assisted Palestinian stone and marble firms Y2-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, # of new jobs created; not disaggregated by sector in the PMP Number of new jobs created as a result of USG assistance Y5-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Increased employment by youth (under 30 years old) Number of youth gaining employment or better employment as a result of participation in USG-funded programs Y3-Y6 No Yes Yes No No Number of businesses started by youth with USG assistance, disaggergated by sex of founder Y3-Y4 NA Yes Yes Yes Yes, # of ICT start-up companies; assuming that all are owned by youth 116 KRA Indicator Years Baseline LOP target LOP Achievement Dropped Captured somewhere else Total number of start-up capital raised by youth, disaggregated by sex Y3-Y6 No Yes Yes No No, but the results are not disaggregated by sex on PMP Number of businesses started by youth with USG assistance that are still in operation one year later, disaggregated by sex of founder Y3-Y4 No Yes Yes Yes No, assuming that # of new start-up companies established No related KRA but feeds into job skills expansion within IR 3 for select sectors Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training Y2-Y6 NA Yes Yes No No Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agriculture sector productivity or food security training - Male Y5-Y6 NA No No No No Number of individuals who have received supported short-term agriculture sector productivity or food security training￾Female Y5-Y6 NA No No No No Number of training courses developed and delivered through the hospitality school Y2-Y4 No Yes Yes Yes No, hospitality school will not materialize during the project life! Number of women participants in training and capacity building courses that improve skills in the ICT and Tourism sectors. Y3-Y4 No No Yes Yes Yes, captured under OP_st (GNDR-2) 117 KRA Indicator Years Baseline LOP target LOP Achievement Dropped Captured somewhere else Component B NO KRAs in Compete RF, the below are Component B expected results from Compete contract: Increased use of BSOs by Palestinian firms to resolve constraints to global competitiveness of specific products and services targeted by the project. Increased use of BSPs by Palestinian firms in acquiring needed services to improve such things as packaging, branding, and marketing of products and services. Increased use of business-to-business services in the areas of accounting, transport, ICT, and other services. Number of new services provided by targeted business service providers and business service organizations to targeted sectors by the project. Y2-Y6 NA Yes Yes No No Percentage increase in number of firms that received services from business service organizations / providers, as a result of USG assistance. Y2-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No, Compete justification: "This is irrelevant since compete is not intending to work with BSOs to increase number of firms. ( Compete reached the peak over the last 4 years)." Increased financial viability of BSOs providing needed services for Palestinian firms competing in the global marketplace. Percentage increase in revenues of business service organizations from new services delivered to theor memebers as a result of USG assistance. Y2-Y4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No, Compete justification:” This is irrelevant since compete is not intending to work with BSOs to establish new revenue generating activities" 118 Annex (H)- Quantitative Data Tables Assisted entities by Compete (Y1-Y7)47 Sector Subsector WBG WB Gaza Agriculture Baby Cucumber 243 243 0 Carrots 5 5 0 Dates 10 10 0 Dried Herbs 10 10 0 Food Processing 5 4 1 Fresh Herbs 20 20 0 Fresh Produce 47 47 0 Grapes 440 440 0 Hanging Strawberry 23 21 2 Herbs 16 0 16 Lychee 1 1 0 Meat and Dairy 7 7 0 Mushroom 1 1 0 Nursery 7 7 0 Olive Oil 65 65 0 Organizations 2 2 0 Post-Harvest 7 2 5 Potatoes 63 6 57 Service Providers 6 6 0 Strawberry 85 0 85 Sweet Potato 7 0 7 Treated Waste Water 9 9 0 Vegetables 146 3 143 Total 1228 911 317 Tourism Hotel 75 74 1 Organization 8 7 1 Restaurant 3 0 3 Service Providers 4 4 0 Site Renovation 24 24 0 Tour Operator 13 13 0 Total 127 122 5 Stone & Marble Decorative Stone 8 8 0 Environmental stone products 16 16 0 Organization 1 1 0 Service Provider 1 1 0 Traditional Stone 20 20 0 Total 46 46 0 Fishing Onshore 4 0 4 Offshore 1 0 1 Total 5 0 5 Garment Garment 33 0 33 ICT Organization 5 4 1 Service Providers 7 1 6 Software Development 33 25 8 Start-ups 75 68 7 Total 120 98 22 47 Source: Compete internal database, March 2018. 119 Compete Investment (Y1-Y6)48 Region Sector Y1 ($M) Y2 ($M) Y3 ($M) Y4 ($M) Y5 ($M) Y6 ($M) Total ($M) WB Agriculture 0.2 1.9 3.4 1.4 1.8 1.9 10.8 ICT 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.4 4.7 Stone & Marble 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 Tourism 0.1 0.7 2.3 2.7 0.4 1.0 7.2 Total 0.4 4.2 8.2 5.3 3.1 3.6 24.9 Gaza Garment/Furnit ure 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.0 2.3 ICT 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total 0 0 0 0 1.4 1.5 2.9 WBG Agriculture 0.2 1.9 3.4 1.4 3.1 2.9 13.0 ICT 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 4.8 Stone & Marble 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 Tourism 0.1 0.7 2.3 2.7 0.4 1.1 7.3 Garment/Furnit ure 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 Total 0.4 4.2 8.2 5.3 4.5 5.1 27.7 Total Investment by Component (Y1-Y6)49 Entity Sector Component A Component B Total USAID Agriculture 9.3 2.8 12.1 ICT 3.0 1.2 4.2 Stone & Marble 1.9 0.2 2.1 Tourism 3.7 2.5 6.1 Fishing, Garment &Furniture 0.9 0 0.9 Total 18.8 6.6 25.4 Beneficiary Agriculture 6.5 0.7 7.2 ICT 3.7 0.9 4.6 Stone & Marble 3.3 0.1 3.4 Tourism 0.1 0.4 0.6 Fishing, Garment &Furniture 1.2 0 1.2 Total 14.8 2.2 17.0 Total USAID & Beneficiary 33.6 8.8 42.5 Compete attributed Exports (Y1-Y6)50 48 Source: Compete response to data inquiry by ET. ET further analysed the data in the above format. 49 Source: Compete activity matrix generated from GeoMIS in February 2018 and that further analysed by sector and Component by ET. 50 Source: Compete response to data inquiry by ET. ET further analysed the data in the above format. 120 Region Sector Y1($M) Y2($M) Y3($M) Y4($M) Y5($M) Y6 ($M) Total WBG Ag 1.1 18.1 23.8 31.6 33.5 39.1 147.3 ICT 0.2 0.9 1.4 2.4 5.4 5.7 16 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stone &Marble 0 6.5 6.8 6.6 8.0 $ 7.6 35.4 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 Garment 0 0 0 0 0.8 2.5 3.3 Total 1.2 25.4 32.0 40.7 47.7 55.1 202.1 Gaza Ag 0 0 0 0 0 8.4 8.4 ICT 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stone &Marble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Garment 0 0 0 0 0.8 2.5 3.3 Total 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 11.3 12.7 WB Ag 1.1 18.1 23.8 31.6 33.5 30.8 138.9 ICT 0.2 0.8 1.2 2.3 5.2 5.4 15.0 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stone &Marble 0 6.5 6.8 6.6 8.0 7.6 35.4 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1.2 25.4 31.8 40.5 46.6 43.8 189.4 Compete attributed Sales (Y1-Y6)51 Region Sector Y1($M) Y2($M) Y3($M) Y4($M) Y5($M) Y6 ($M) Total($M) WBG Ag 1.1 20.0 32.5 39.3 56.8 68.0 217.7 ICT 0.2 0.7 1.4 1.7 6.1 6.9 17.0 Tourism 0 0 0 0 1.7 1.6 3.3 S&M 0 6.5 6.8 6.6 8.2 8.1 36.2 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0.3 3.8 4.0 Garment 0 0 0 0 1.1 8.2 9.3 Total 1.2 27.2 40.6 47.7 74.2 96.6 287.5 WB Ag 1.07 19.97 32.47 39.35 56.69 53.19 202.73 ICT 0.15 0.68 1.23 1.56 5.88 5.80 15.30 Tourism 0 0 0 0 1.74 0.11 1.85 S&M 0 6.46 6.79 6.59 8.19 8.14 36.16 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1.22 27.12 40.48 47.49 72.49 67.23 256.04 Gaza Ag 0 0 0 0 0.13 14.82 14.95 ICT 0 0.05 0.15 0.18 0.24 1.10 1.72 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 1.46 1.46 S&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0.25 3.77 4.03 Garment 0 0 0 0 1.08 8.21 9.29 Total 0 0.05 0.15 0.18 1.71 29.36 31.44 Compete attributed Domestic Sales (Y1-Y6)52 Region Sector Y1($M) Y2($M) Y3($M) Y4($M) Y5($M) Y6 ($M) Total($M) 51 Source: Compete response to data inquiry by ET. ET further analysed the data in the above format. 52 Calculated by ET by subtracting exports from total sales as per Compete adopted measurement for domestic sales. 121 WBG Ag 0 1.9 8.7 7.7 23.3 28.9 70.4 ICT 0 -0.1 0 -0.7 0.7 1.2 1.0 Tourism 0 0 0 0 1.7 1.6 3.3 S&M 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.7 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0.3 3.6 3.9 Garment 0 0 0 0 0.3 5.7 6.0 Total 0 1.8 8.7 7.0 26.5 41.5 85.4 Gaza Ag 0 0 0 0 0.1 6.5 6.6 ICT 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 S&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0.3 3.6 3.9 Garment 0 0 0 0 0.3 5.7 6.0 Total 0 0 0 0 0.7 18.0 18.7 WB Ag 0 1.9 8.7 7.7 23.2 22.4 63.9 ICT 0 -0.1 0 -0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 Tourism 0 0 0 0 1.7 0.1 1.8 S&M 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.7 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1.8 8.7 7.0 25.8 23.4 66.7 Women Employment (Y1-Y6) 53 Region Sector Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Total WBG Ag 0 397 50 45 51 399 942 ICT 2 23 33 48 53 66 225 Tourism 0 2 7 9 7 3 28 S&M 0 6 8 9 8 5 36 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 428 98 111 119 473 1231 WB Ag 0 397 50 45 51 393 936 ICT 2 20 33 48 48 53 204 Tourism 0 2 7 9 7 3 28 S&M 0 6 8 9 8 5 36 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 425 98 111 114 454 1204 Gaza Ag 0 0 0 0 3 6 9 ICT 0 0 0 0 5 13 18 Tourism 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 8 19 27 Employment (Y1-Y6) 54 Region Sector Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Total WBG Ag 0 928 203 207 278 2879 4495 ICT 31 77 142 129 148 119 646 53 Source: Compete response to data inquiry by ET. ET further analysed the data in the above format. 54 Source: Compete response to data inquiry by ET. ET further analysed the data in the above format. 122 Tourism 0 46 46 34 24 12 162 Stone and Marble 0 47 37 47 45 34 210 Fishing 0 0 0 0 5 22 27 Garment 0 0 0 0 12 132 144 Total 31 1098 428 417 512 3198 5684 WB Ag 0 928 203 207 278 2414 4030 ICT 31 77 142 129 133 95 607 Tourism 0 46 46 34 22 8 156 Stone and Marble 0 47 37 47 45 34 210 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 31 1098 428 417 478 2551 5003 Gaza Ag 0 0 0 0 0 465 465 ICT 0 0 0 0 15 24 39 Tourism 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 Stone and Marble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishing 0 0 0 0 5 22 27 Garment 0 0 0 0 12 132 144 Total 0 0 0 0 34 647 681 Summary Employment by Sector, Region and Gender55 Sector WBG (M) WBG (F) Total WBG WB (M) WB (F) Total WB Gaza (M) Gaza (F) Total Gaza Agricultu re 3553 942 4495 3094 936 4030 459 9 468 ICT 421 225 646 403 204 607 21 18 39 Tourism 134 28 162 128 28 156 6 0 6 S&M 174 36 210 174 36 210 0 0 0 Fishing 27 0 27 0 0 0 27 0 27 Garment 144 0 144 0 0 0 144 0 144 Total 4453 1231 5684 3772 1204 4976 657 27 684 55 Source: Compete response to data inquiry by ET. ET further analysed the data in the above format. 123 Annex (I)- Statements of Differences Compete Evaluation Technical Team Statement of Differences December 20, 2018 ________________________________________________________________________ The USAID Economic Growth and Infrastructure technical team appreciates the efforts of the QED Evaluation Team to review the team’s comments from late July 23, 2018. Specific Responses to Conclusions in the Compete Evaluation Report 5.1.7 Approach to skills transfer and workforce development Across the sample of firms consulted by the evaluation team, few had received any form of capacity building support from Compete. While Compete does undertake efforts to assess capacity prior to commencing a relationship with a firm, and in some cases will make it conditional that firms receive capacity building prior to assistance being provided, more generally it appears that Compete’s approach to skills transfer is based in recognition that it is companies themselves that are best placed to identify and direct required capacity development. While this has merit, it also carries some risk since it assumes that companies sufficiently know their business and understand their needs, and that they have a clear understanding of best practice and current trends within a sector. Technical Team Response: While Compete’s strategy focused on building the capacity within firms based on assessment conducted by Compete per firm, Compete also looked at the workforce development at value chain and sector level and designed special programs to address that. For examples, Agronomist training, SAP training for ICT sector, and design engineering with National Instruments. The combination of both resulted in a more sustainable workforce development. 5.1.8 Relationships with other agencies/mechanisms of relevance A key conclusion of the evaluation is that Compete has not been a particularly active member of the various communities of practice related to its sectors of focus, and private sector development more generally. While it is the case that USAID has responsibility for leading coordination with donors, there are various less formal mechanisms and modalities focused on specific issues of interest where Compete could both contribute and achieve value by participating. More active participation in coordination mechanisms is not only good ‘citizenship’, it also opens the door to complementary relationships. Such relationships offer particular potential for a project such as Compete which is heavy on ‘hardware’ capacity (provision of materials) but limited in terms of ‘software’ (the capacity to provide people on the ground to support skills development, inclusion or troubleshoot) – which is the opposite situation for many partners, especially NGOs who often can contribute staff and technical support, but cannot address material deficiencies. Technical Team Response: Compete worked, met, advised and coordinated with other projects, donors, NGOs and the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture throughout the life of the project including, among others, Portland Trust, FAO, Oxfam and USDA projects. For example, Compete worked jointly with Oxfam to assist Dawlina Company and was fully aware of the FAO cold store assistance to Kufr Dan Cooperative and considered it part of Kufr Dan cost share as this assistance is under component B. Furthermore, Compete coordinated with KFW on the TWW project in Dier Sharaf, with PMDP on many projects including in the Nurseries, fish hatcheries and the dates sector in Gaza. 5.1.9 Project gender and youth performance Compete’s gender performance has been limited in terms of the higher-level outcomes aspired to within the gender strategy pillars for inclusion, promotion and empowerment of women within the Palestinian private sector. 124 The lack of detailed analysis of the gender dynamics within the targeted value chains/sub-sectors, combined with Compete’s lack of sub-denies the project the opportunity of utilizing a market systems analysis process to inform broader landscape understanding of gender dynamics. Technical Team Response: Compete does have a detailed gender strategy, and women’s integration and empowerment are an integral part of the strategy and design of programs under each sub-sector or value chain. Additionally, the design of the delivery mechanism (FLAP) offers higher cost share contribution by Compete to women to better facilitate their participation. 5.5 Implementation approach and management Compete needs to be acknowledged for the breadth of its reach and its ability in the most part to astutely tailor support to the context of its many different sub-sectors and sub-sector actors, each of which faces its own unique challenges and opportunities. Project identification and start up in Gaza also deserves acknowledgment for being well conceived and swift in its response, allowing for a lot to be achieved within a relatively short time. More generally, the project has identified sub-sectors and a cohort of partners within Gaza who all have the capacity to either directly or indirectly get their produce out of Gaza. This is a very important lesson learned and points to the importance of addressing macro issues related to movement of people and goods, since those businesses that do enjoy that privilege demonstrate that they are very capable of being competitive even within the myriad constraints that currently affect Gaza. Efforts in the agriculture sector deserve particular mention given they touch virtually every agricultural value chain of importance. Success in value chains such as baby cucumber highlights the potential of Compete when it has sophisticated understanding, is deeply engaged and active across multiple points of a value chain. These successes provide a road map for sector engagement and beg the question of whether the project spread itself too thin by being involved across 23 agriculture value chains. Deeper initial analysis leading to deeper engagement of fewer sub-sectors might well have yielded better results. It is also noted that agriculture remained a project priority throughout, whereas approaches to ICT and Tourism significantly changed course during implementation. While the rationale for these changes appears sound, it equally appears that these changes were not clearly communicated or justified to those who felt they had contributed a lot to helping Compete establish a strategy within those sectors. While the project monitoring and evaluation approach is expansive, it is not sufficiently tailored to measurement of the results that the project describes in its Results Framework. This is particularly true of more qualitative results such as ‘reliability and dependability’ of relationships; ‘increase in ‘improved’ products’; or the ‘improved image’ of Palestinian goods. Even within the more quantitative result areas, data gathering has been inconsistently collated and often incompatible with the baseline data that had been assembled. PIRS in relation to attribution of increase in exports, sales and employment are generous and run the risk of inflating results beyond what should be genuinely attributed to Compete. One aspect of this is a lack of recognition of the contribution being made to firms by other stakeholders and donors. Overall, the process of PIRS review/update appears to have not paid sufficient attention to how such changes affect the evaluability of the project and was overly focused on addressing weaknesses identified in indicator measurement year-on-year. Ideally, more attention would have been paid to ensuring the M&E system was capable of generating data that enables more holistic and revealing monitoring and evaluation of the project over its entire lifetime Overall, it is the ET’s perspective that an opportunity was missed with the way M&E was conducted over the life of the project, by not being sufficiently focused on ‘monitoring for learning’, as opposed to monitoring to aid reporting. In depth understanding and documentation of successes and failures would be a great asset as USAID moves towards funding a similarly focused program. Clear understanding of issues related to wastewater use; reasons underpinning the failure of the Gaza 125 greenhouse strawberry intervention; unpacking of the concept of ‘better jobs’; or drilling down in to the complexity of issues related to ‘women led’ businesses are examples of activities worthy of documented research. Technical Team Response: The team disagrees with the ET’s conclusion regarding M&E. Compete is not required to have an M&E system tailored to “monitoring for learning”, this concept was introduced by USAID on February 21st. 2018, near the end of Compete’s contract. All of Compete M&E PMP plans and indicators were submitted prior to February 21, 2018 and were approved and monitored by USAID. 126 Annex (J)- Signed Disclosure of conflict of interest (Original signed forms are attached separately) 127 128 129 130 Annex (K)- Evaluation Team Curriculum Vietas Evaluation Team Leader 1. Name: Scott William RANKIN￾2. Nationality: Australian 3. Education: Institution [Date from - Date to] Degree(s) or Diploma(s) obtained: 2009-11 Master of Evaluation and Assessment University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (awarded 2011) 1991-2 Post-Graduate Diploma in Development Studies Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (awarded 1992) 1982 – 1985 Bachelor of Education (Secondary) 4. Language skills: on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 - excellent; 5 - basic) Language Reading Speaking Writing English 1 1 1 Spanish 2 3 3 Bahasa Indonesia 3 3 3 Khmer 4 5. Present position: Senior Evaluation Specialist, Research Communications Group Senior Evaluation Specialist within a niche global consulting team providing high quality technical assistance to a range of clients along the research, design, monitoring, evaluation continuum, including support to strategic planning, community engagement, private sector engagement, business development, project management, development of monitoring and evaluation frameworks and training in knowledge management approaches. Clients have included the private sector, government agencies (local, state and national), UN agencies, development banks, leading international NGOs and local/indigenous NGOs. I bring extensive hands on experience and advanced capacity for problem solving ensuring flexibility and the capacity to quickly comprehend and address the unique context and needs of each individual client. This diverse experience across time, sector, organisation type and region ensures sophisticated appreciation of the ‘bigger picture’ and the perspectives, mind set, capacity and constraints of different stakeholder groups. Core competencies include the ability to: • blend experience with new ideas, ensuring approaches that are appreciative of current trends and practise, while also considerate of what is known to have worked – and not worked - in the past • construct findings that are rigorously evidence based, while also being positioned with nuance within the specific context and information needs of different stakeholders • utilise a toolbox of quantitative and qualitative evaluation approaches, and tailor to the unique context and needs of individual clients (including consideration of feasibility and efficiency of approaches) • ensure approaches are reflective of cultural norms, while also ensuring active consideration of gender issues and inclusion of marginalised groups • calibrate training approaches to existing capacity and the information needs of different client groups • work inclusively and harmoniously with local staff to ensure ownership and confidence in approaches • foster strong, mutually supportive teams • build respectful and constructive relationships with key clients and key stakeholders 131 The umbrella under which the vast majority of my work sits is the resilience of rural communities. Areas of particular interest include value chain development, private sector engagement, rural employment, gender and strategies for knowledge management that bring genuine clarity to program performance. In 2011, I completed a Masters of Assessment and Evaluation at the University of Melbourne, with the aim of further strengthening and consolidating my evaluation understanding and capacity. An impact of this study has been capacity for deliberate blending of qualitative and quantitative analysis into my work. 6. Specific countries of overseas experience: Africa Asia Latin America Middle East Pacific Angola Afghanistan Argentina Iraq PNG Ethiopia Cambodia Bolivia Jordan Solomon Islands Ghana China El Salvador Lebanon Malawi India Palestinian Territories Mali Indonesia Mozambique Lao PDR Tanzania Myanmar Zimbabwe Thailand Timor Leste Viet Nam 7. Other information of relevance Member Australasian Evaluation Society Member American Evaluation Association Member International Association for Public Participation Recipient Australian Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal (issued by Australian Government in 2004 for service in Cambodia) Recipient Cambodian Service Medal (issued by the Royal Government of Cambodia in 2006 for services to mine action in Cambodia) 132 8. Professional experience - past five years Date from/to Loca tion Company Positio n Description Jan – Feb 2018 Iraq World Vision Iraq Strate gy Advis or Facilitating process in support of World Vision realigning its operational mandate and strategy from a humanitarian orientated ‘Syria Response’, to one that is ‘whole of Iraq’ focused and better positioned to support return, resettlement and rehabilitation post Mosul. Approach involved vulnerability mapping, stakeholder consultations and internal review of current and future needs. Oct – Dec 2017 Cam bodi a Oxfam Cambodia Evalua tion Advis or Review of Oxfam efforts to engage private sector to strengthen extractive industries governance in Mekong region. Assess effectiveness of project facilitated capacity building efforts and multi-stakeholder platforms to bring together government, private sector, civil society and affected communities with aim of ensuring social and environmental responsibility of mining projects. June – Dec 2017 USA, Gha na and Tanz ania US Agency for Internation al Developme nt Evalua tion Team Leade r Led external performance evaluation of the USAID Feed the Future Assets and Market Access ‘Innovation Lab’, which conducts applied research globally in relation to market’s role in overcoming persistently low levels of adoption by smallholder farmers of proven new technologies. The research portfolio aim is to better understand and identify solutions that help build rural households’ resiliency, food security, and participation in agriculture-led economic growth. The $35 million program is managed by the University of California – Davis May – July 2017 Aust ralia Victorian Dept of Environmen t, Land, Water and Planning Evalua tion Advis or Develop a ‘place based’ monitoring and evaluation framework to measure progress of community engagement practices in building capacity, strengthening partnerships and enhancing resilience through a ‘place based approach’ to disaster mitigation. Feb – May 2017 Aust ralia Salvation Army Evalua tor Performance evaluation of the Australian Department of Health funded BridgeLink program, aimed at supporting women experiencing drug and/or alcohol related issues and housing difficulties to make positive changes in their lifestyle, through supporting entry into the workforce. Sep – Dec 2016 Aust ralia Australian Red Cross Evalua tor Assessment of relevance, effectiveness and value for money of Red Cross recovery (from disasters) programming, including development of performance measurement framework aimed to strengthening the overall performance of Australian Red Cross in the disaster preparedness and recovery space. Aug – Sep 2016 Egyp t Save the Children Traine r/ Evalua tor Prepare evaluation framework and provide training and leadership for roll out of Disaster Risk Reduction assessment and mapping processes to identify risks and responses related to the influx of Syrian refugees into Egyptian communities in general, and schools in particular. June – July 2016 Aust ralia Consortia of Australian NGOs Facilita tor/ Write r Facilitated process for reaching agreement amongst a consortia of leading Australian NGOs (CARE, Caritas, Oxfam, Save the Children, World Vision) in relation to a joint bid to Australian DFAT for NGO management of the Australian Humanitarian Partnership Support Unit (the key body for activation and funding of Australian NGO disaster response). Oct 2015 – June 2016 Afric a (six coun tries) US Agency for Internation al Developme nt Team Leade r Led performance assessment across six African countries of USAID funded $55 million Africa RISING program, a five year ‘research for development’ program funding CGIAR and private sector entities to identify and validate scalable options for sustainable intensification of key African farming systems. Country programs assessed were Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania and Zambia. Jul – Aug 2015 Pales tinia n Terri torie s World Vision Lead Resear cher Lead and coordinate team of researchers to investigate the impact on children of Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, requiring interviews of a broad spectrum of informants ranging from children to senior UN negotiators. June – July 2015 Aust ralia Oxfam Australia Advis or/Tea m Memb er One of five evaluation advisors undertaking a global review of Oxfam Australia progress towards achievement of its Global Program level outcomes. Specific responsibility for assessment of Oxfam’s ability to build resilience of rural communities and promote the right of marginalised peoples to be heard. 133 Date from/to Loca tion Company Positio n Description May – Jun 2015 Pales tinia n Terri torie s ActionAid Resear cher Preparation of a paper considering the effectiveness of ActionAid strategies in ‘building resilience’ within the Hebron area of West Bank, looking at questions of greater inclusion of women and youth in building resilience; enabling factors need to be in place for resilience building to be genuinely effective; the profile of social capital in poor rural communities of the oPTs; and whether or not economic empowerment can be an effective community strengthening approach. March – July 2015 Aust ralia Emergency Managemen t Victoria Evalua tor Support across Victoria’s emergency management sector to assess its preparedness and capacity to support greater community involvement in disaster risk preparedness efforts (notably fire), with the aim of ensuring harmonised approaches across the sector. Dec 2014 – March 2015 Pales tinia n Terri torie s Australian DFAT Design Team Leade r Led design team in consultations and preparation of program framework and substantive guidelines for tendering of a $42.5 million Australia Middle East NGO Cooperation Agreement (phase 2) program of assistance to the Palestinian Territories focused on agricultural value chain development, private sector strengthening and rural resilience and civil society support. Nov 2015 – Jan 2015 Pales tinia n Terri torie s ActionAid Evalua tor Lead role in overseeing an end of project, external evaluation to strengthen future programming efforts to support vulnerable women and youth in the West Bank, as well as identify learning around strategies for building resilience, the empowerment of women and young people within the Palestinian context. Sept - Nov 2014 Pales tinia n Terri torie s Australian DFAT Evalua tion Team Leade r Led review of A$35 million Australia Middle East NGO Cooperation Agreement (phase 1), requiring program level analysis of the contributions of four implementing consortia (ActionAid, APHEDA, CARE, World Vision) in towards achievement of program goal of improving livelihoods and reducing the socio-economic vulnerability of Palestinian people, notably women, youth and farmers. Aug – Sept 2014 Aust ralia Emergency Managemen t Victoria Com munity Engage ment Advis or Preparatory work related to planned commencement of an ‘all-agencies’ approach to emergency management planning in the State of Victoria. Consideration of the overall logic of the proposed approach and recommendations regarding a strong monitoring and evaluation framework to support its implementation. July 2014 Arge ntina ADY Resources Ltd Stakeh older Engage ment Coordinated systematic and holistic process of stakeholder liaison, including evaluation of existing community focused projects, resulting in recommendations for restructuring of company’s Sustainability Department Nov 2013 – June 2014 (multiple prior inputs) Boliv ia LionGold Corp (previously Republic Gold Ltd.) Senior Manag er Responsible for overall coordination of community relations related to a highly complex gold project in Bolivia’s poorest province. Work included stakeholder liaison, negotiation of land access agreements with indigenous communities affected by the project, and establishment of a framework for monitoring and evaluation of both community risk and community projects aimed at reducing risk. October 2013 Arge ntina ADY Resources Ltd Evalua tion Advis or Independent assessment of company efforts towards achievement of a social licence to operate, for their proposed lithium project to be implemented amongst indigenous communities of the northern Argentinian ‘altiplano’, including preparation of a report for distribution to the company board of management and potential investors. Sept 2013 Laos World Vision Advis or Analysis and definition of the program parameters most essential for World Vision Laos to achieve its goal of child well being, focusing on issues of resourcing, geography, population, partnering capacity and criteria for selection of sponsored children. Various over 2011 - 2013 Boliv ia Republic Gold Ltd Com munity Relati ons Leadership of process of strategic planning aimed at ensuring holistic consideration of community issues and perspectives in relation to achieving a social licence to commence mining for gold in the Bolivian highlands. The process involved coordination of a process of stakeholder mapping, initiation of 134 Date from/to Loca tion Company Positio n Description Advis or a broad series of community and stakeholder consultations, and awareness raising regarding indigenous governance and decision-making structures, resulting in a coordinated organisational plan to guide community relations. April – Sept 2013 Mek ong Regi on Oxfam America Lead Evalua tor Evaluation of Oxfam’s Mekong region ‘Civil Society and Extractive Industries Program’, which aimed to strengthen civil society capacity to effectively advocate for best practice in extractive industries, with a particular focus on areas with high concentrations of indigenous peoples. The evaluation was regarded as particularly effective in that it helped break down barriers that had previously existed between NGOs, the mining sector and relevant government departments. Jul – Oct 2012 Afgh anist an World Vision Design Team Leade r Led design process for development of an ‘Area Rehabilitation Program’ for Badghis province, aimed at identifying a suitable implementation model for a ‘fragile state’, that helped transition the program from an emergency context to a longer term development model. Jan – April 2012 Afgh anist an World Vision Team Leade r Evaluation and subsequent baseline assessment of the highly sensitive STI & HIV/AIDS Prevention and Education project in Herat province focused on harm reduction and communication with at-risk groups in relation to diseases such as hepatitis B and C, and HIV-AIDS. Evaluation and baseline included representation of religious and education authorities. Sample of other professional experience in Mekong Region 1992 – 2011 (full CV available on request) Date from/to Locati on Compan y Position Description Sept – Dec 2011 Laos Oxfam Hong Kong Progra m Design Team Leader Led a multi-disciplinary team through a program design process looking at the impact of agribusiness in indigenous communities in the uplands of northern Laos, through development a multi-year plan and framework for a rights-driven and well-being orientated program in Phongsali Province. Feb – Apr 2011 Laos Oxfam Hong Kong Lead Evaluat or Review of Integrated Upland Agricultural Livelihoods in Huaphan Province, including training of a multi-disciplinary team of Government, Programme and Community representatives. Jun – Aug 2010 Camb odia World Bank Group Civil Society Engage ment Consult ant Coordinate a civil society response to the proposed Pilot Program on Climate Resilience Support Facility being commenced in Cambodia by the World Bank, ADB and UNDP. Objective of assignment was to facilitate a process of consultation and consensus building with civil society, and to prepare an agreed position paper defining the scope of support required. Feb – May 2010 Meko ng region Oxfam Internati onal Team Leader Final evaluation of Oxfam International’s ‘Mekong Region Anti Human Trafficking Programme’, involving field work across four countries of the Mekong region, focussing on both Programme performance, the institutional arrangements under which it occurred, and outcomes achieved. Gender performance of the Programme was also a priority focus of the evaluation. Oct – Dec 2009 Laos Australia n DFAT Facility Design Consult ant Development of an Australian funded financing facility to address unexploded ordnance in Laos, focused on (i) capacity building for UXO Lao, (ii) operations and standards support for the National Regulatory Authority, and (iii) assistance to the Lao Ministry of Foreign Affairs in preparation for the first States Party Meeting of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, scheduled for 2010. Mar – May 2009 Myan mar CARE Australia Design Team Leader Management of a multi-ethnic/ multi-language design team responsible for development of a ‘women’s empowerment program’ for northern Shan state, including implementation of a Household Livelihood Security Assessment Nov 2008 – Feb 2009 Camb odia United Nations Develop ment Program Facilitat or/ Writer Facilitated process to develop Cambodia’s first National Strategy for Mine Action strategy. The task involved negotiating with stakeholders to identify agreed approaches and standards, to ensure alignment and support of key players. The process was also used to prepare the Government’s ‘extension request’ to the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. Jan 2008 – Dec 2010 Camb odia Sky (a SDC supporte d health initiative) Produc er/ Evaluat or A ‘Visual Evaluation’ to study an Australian Development Research Award - ‘Combining Health Equity Funding and Community-Based Health Insurance to protect the poor’. The output was a video aimed at assessing options for the use of Health Equity Funding and Community-Based Health Insurance to provide financial access to health services for the poor? 135 Date from/to Locati on Compan y Position Description Nov 2005 – Feb 2006 Camb odia World Vision Design Team Leader Design of a $3.5 million program aiming to reduce human and community impact of land mines and UXO’s through an integrated approach that paired mine clearance program with support to agriculture livelihoods strategies for beneficiaries of demined land. Jan 2003 – Dec 2009 Camb odia Australia n Voluntee rs Internati onal Progra m Manage r (Part time) Manager of an Australian DFAT supported program supporting development of Mine Action Planning Units. MAPUs were cross-sectoral units chaired by Provincial Governors, and provided technical assistance by the Cambodian Mine Action Authority, with responsibility to investigate and make recommendations in relation to Provincial Demining Plans. Jun 1997 – May 2001 Meko ng Regio n United Nations Develop ment Program Progra m Manage r Responsible for management and coordination of the UN Regional Highland Peoples Program, implemented across Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Viet Nam, which focused on identifying and responding to the special needs of ethnic minority peoples living in highland areas of the Mekong sub-region, promoting the more active participation of minorities in development planning as one part of the solution to the widespread poverty in these areas. Sept 1992 – Jun 1997 Austr alia Australia n Voluntee rs Internati onal Progra m Manage r Responsible for ongoing design and management of programs across the Asia region, with specific responsibility for Cambodia and a ‘Distance Education for Burmese Refugees’ - a program that offered Australian accredited training to refugee communities. Market Development Specialist Amer Madi KEY SKILL AREA: Project Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation; Systems Approaches to Livelihood Development (M4P/MSD); Food Security Analysis; Qualitative Socio-Economic Research; Facilitation and Training. EDUCATION: 1998 - 2000 MBA (Hons) – Concentration in Operations Management, Eastern Michigan University (Ypsilanti, Michigan – USA) 1993 – 1997 BA, [combined] Economics and Business Administration, Hope College (Holland, Michigan – USA) LANGUAGES: Spoken Read Written Level Arabic x x x Mother tongue English x x x Fluent PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Al-Sahel Company for Institutional Development and Communication Jan 2004–to date Managing Partner 136 Consultancy Assignments: Program/Project Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation; and Socio-Economic Research January 2018 – ongoing: International Labour Organisation (ILO), Institutional Assessment of the Palestinian Fund for Employment and Social Protection (PFESP) The objective of this exercise is to assess the role of the PFESP in relation to its original mandate and identify the strengths, weaknesses/gaps and opportunities in the institutional capacity of the PFESP to effectively assume its role in employment policy advisory, coordination and monitoring and evaluation. The assessment –currently underway- is expected to ultimately help the Fund design its strategic plan and will also identify capacity building needs to ensure effective and proactive involvement of the Fund in assuming its role. November 2017 – ongoing: INTRAC, Impact Evaluation of the British Council’s Active Citizens Programme in the MENA Region Co-leading this evaluation which is set to examine the impact of the Active Citizens Program –one of the British Council’s flagship programmes- on individuals, communities, and partner organisations through a story-based evaluation approach that involves cross-case analysis from four target countries (Morocco, Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon), contribution analysis, and case studies. November – December 2017: The QED Group, LLC, Civil Society Assessment Managed and assumed a quality assurance function on this assessment which was intended to provide programmatic recommendations to USAID –assessment commissioner- for supporting governance and civic engagement through Palestinian civil society. The Assessment was conducted within the framework of a sub-contractual agreement between AL-Sahel and The QED Group. September – December 2017: United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organisation (UNESC), Programme Evaluation- Local Development through Rehabilitation and Revitalization of Historic Environment in Palestine Programme Led a team of three specialists who undertook this final evaluation. The evaluation provided an independent, in￾depth assessment of the achievements of programme results and the implementation modality, which involved UNESCO serving as Secretariat and four implementing cultural heritage organisations, as well as provided detailed actionable recommendations for a new phase of the programme. The evaluation was commissioned by UNESCO with funding from SIDA, the programme donor. March - July 2017: International Labour Organisation (ILO), Employment Policy Diagnostic Study: Mapping and analysis of labour market trends, governance, employment programmes and services in the OPT Undertook this diagnostic study over a period of 90 days with the overall objective of enabling ILO and its social partners to develop a complete understanding of the labour market trends, existing services and programmes, and labour market challenges facing the OPT. The study mapped existing employment programmes and services (both private and public), while assessing their impact and identifying their strengths and main shortfalls. It provided an in-depth understanding of the nature of the deficiency of productive employment, and the context-specific constraints, challenges and opportunities for increasing productive employment through sustainable and inclusive job-rich growth as a basis for a sharper and more effective focus of employment policy in the OPT. The study provided entry points for the ILO in supporting its tripartite constituents in developing their own vision, policy framework and plan for the future of employment in the OPT. March – April 2017: SDG-F Secretariat/UN Women, Final Evaluation of the One-Stop-Shop (OSS) for Sustainable Business Joint Programme The OSS was a two year programme funded by the Sustainable Development Goals Fund (SDGF) and implemented jointly by UN Women, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the International Trade Center (ITC) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The The OSS-JP aimed to contribute to creating greater economic empowerment, improved livelihoods and access to decent work for Palestinians through (i) supporting the development and 137 growth of women-owned or women-run micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME’s) and cooperative associations working in the cultural and agricultural sectors, and (ii) improving the enabling environment for inclusive economic growth and empowerment through policy development and promotion of gender-sensitive business practices. The evaluation used a participatory qualitative approach, with a utilisation focus. The evaluation followed UNEG Guidelines and was based on OECD-DAC criteria October 2016 – January 2017: ILO, Assessment of the Working Conditions in the Domestic Work Sector in the West Bank Undertook this preliminary study which focusd on identifying and assessing of the issues faced by Palestinian domestic workers in the West Bank, focusing on Ramallah, Nablus and Hebron governorates and communities in Area C of the Jordan Valley (areas under sole Israeli jurisdiction). The study examined how workers negotiate their employment, what kind of wages and benefits they have, and the possibilities for organizing or otherwise supporting domestic workers in Palestine. Qualitative analysis was conducted through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with domestic workers and employers. ILO pubished both the assessment report and the policy brief produced within the framework of the study 2016: Yesh Din, Yesh Din’s Legal Aid Interventions from Beneficiaries’ Perspective: A Review Led this review of Yesh Din’s (Israeli Human Rights NGO) legal aid interventions benefiting Palestinian victims of human rights violations. The review employed a mixed-method approach, relying on both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools to gather the information used in its analysis. 2016 (ongoing since 2014): Oxfam GB, Market and Enterprise Development Advisor Advising Oxfam’s Economic Justice Team in areas related to programme design and strategy analysis within the framework of three separate projects funded by SDC, SiDA, and DFAT-Australia. Key inputs provided include, inter alia: facilitating participatory processes for the selection and prioritisation of sub-sectors, leading value chain and market systems assessments, training and coaching project staff on market system development approaches, formulating concept notes for intervention strategies, designing of measurement plans for market systems development interventions, and technical writing of proposals to donors. 2016 (ongoing): ILO, National Liaison on Social Security Schemes and Fiscal Space Analysis Supporting and serving as a local focal point for a multi-disciplinary team of ILO experts in developing several social protection floor studies (SPF) including: a) a mapping study on all existing social protection schemes; b) a mapping study of existing health care risk pooling arrangements in Palestine; c) fiscal space analysis; d) impact assessment of current and proposed social protection schemes on poverty and vulnerability; e) a costing study of SPF. 2015: Mokoro Ltd., WFP Country Portfolio Evaluation- State of Palestine Senior Evaluator in a five-person core team of independent consultants tasked with the evaluation of WFP portfolio in the State of Palestine over the years 2011-2015. Thematic responsibility for food security and livelihoods as well as leading on Palestine contextualization; and, in collaboration with the team’s economist, evaluating the cash and voucher modality of WFP’s interventions over the evaluation period. 2015: We Effect (formerly Swedish Cooperative Center), Evaluation of a two-year humanitarian project funded within the framework of the CAP Process Led this summative evaluation, which was conducted by a team of three experts and based on a qualitative assessment approach. The evaluation aimed at providing an overall judgment on the project’s performance and value added, using OECD-DAC criteria. Project interventions evaluated included cottage industries, agricultural land rehabilitation, off-farm income-generating projects, and in-kind food distribution. 2015: Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), Evaluation of the NPA’s Humanitarian Programme in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Co-led this evaluation which examined NPA’s humanitarian assistance program in Palestine since 2011. The evaluation focused on assessing NPA’s approach of working with and through Palestinian NGO partners. 2015: INTRAC, Review of the Partnership Model Used by Oxfam GB in the Implementation of the EC and SDC Funded From Grove to Market Programme 138 Providing technical backstopping and quality assurance support to INTRAC’s lead consultant undertaking the review, which aimed at assessing the degree to which the Programme Management Unit (PMU) partnership model has added value to Programme implementation and impact, with the view of generating lessons for Oxfam in strengthening its partnerships’ work. 2014/2015: Oxfam GB, Programme Design/Improving Market Access for Small-Scale Men and Women Farmers in the West Bank (using M4P approach) Within the framework of a programme inception phase financed by SDC, facilitated the process of sub-sector shortlisting and selection, on the basis of a consultative process and M4P methodology; led the development of market system analysis for the selected value chains using a standardized set of M4P tools adapted to the West Bank context; contributed to commodity-specific stakeholder analysis and mapping, including exploring potential private/public sector investments in fresh produce agricultural value chain development; supported capacity development of partners and stakeholders during the inception phase of the Programme; contributed to the design of the project document. 2014/2015: World Food Programme (WFP-oPt), Impact Evaluation of the Cash Transfer Modalities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Led this mixed method evaluation which involved an assessment of the impact of the following food assistance/cash transfer modalities: voucher-only, conditional voucher, and combined voucher modalities. The quantitative component of the evaluation was based on an experimental study design, where non-beneficiary households were surveyed to provide counterfactual evidence to the evaluation. 2014: Food Security Sector, Damages and Losses Assessment in the Agriculture Sector in the Gaza Strip Led this assessment which aimed at providing an in-depth understanding of the livelihood conditions and needs of farmers in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the war. More specifically, the objectives of the assessment were to assess the level and scale to which Gaza farmers (in plant, livestock and fishery sub-sectors) have resumed production, according to the level of damage and losses sustained in the various farming communities; identify the constraints facing Gaza farmers to resume production at pre-assault levels, with a focus on constraints that remain largely unaddressed; and make actionable programming recommendations for supporting early and long-term recovery in the agriculture sector. 2014: Food Security Sector, Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) in the Gaza Strip Led this rapid assessment which aimed to guide possible adjustments of food security, agriculture and livelihood interventions in the aftermath of a 51-day Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip. The assessment’s specific objectives were: (i) to assess changes in Gaza households’ food access and consumption patterns, cash sources to meet other priority basic needs and coping mechanisms used to respond to the specific effects of the war; (ii) to evaluate Gaza households’ resilience capacity; (iii) to evaluate wholesale and retail markets current functionality and early recovery capacity for supplying food to consumers; and (iv) To determine the profile of population groups requiring food, agriculture and other livelihood support assistance (including the current caseload of humanitarian agencies as well as additional groups if appropriate), and the type of assistance required for each of these groups. 2014: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Impact Evaluation of FAO’s Plan or Action 2011-2013 Leading this qualitative and quantitative evaluation of FAO’s interventions over the period 2011-2013, with the main objective of identifying actionable recommendations for the formulation of FAO’s Country Assessment Framework which is currently under formulation, and lessons learned for wider consideration. 2014 and 2011/2012: World Food Programme (WFP-oPt), Secondary Impact Assessment of the Urban Food Voucher Programme (UVP) Led this assessment which examined the impact of the UVP on beneficiary households, participating shops, dairy producers and farmers. The assessment, which took place in 2011/2012 and repeated in 2014, involved the use of mixed method approach and reliance on study and control groups to ascertain impact. 2013: Municipal Development and Lending Fund (MDLF), Pre-Feasibility of Amalgamating the Villages of Talfit, Jaloud, Jourish, Qaryout & Qusra Within the framework of the Local Development Programme-Phase III funded by the Government of Denmark, commissioned by the MDLF to assess the feasibility of amalgamation of five villages in southeast Nablus Governorate and to assess the level of public support within these five villages for the amalgamation. The 139 assessment culminated in long- and short-term recommendations for moving forward with the amalgamation, which have been endorsed and adopted by MDLF. 2012: UN Women, Project Final Evaluation, Establishment, Rehabilitation and Activation of Eight Women’s Centres in the Gaza Strip and West Bank Led the final evaluation of the this Saudi-funded project that aimed to improve Palestinian women’s social and economic situation through training and women empowerment- oriented infrastructure development initiatives. The evaluation provided strategic inputs to the design of the second phase of the project, which was eventually funded two years later. 2011/2012: Oxfam-GB, A Roadmap for Agribusiness Development in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: An analysis of the Vegetables & Herbs, Dairy, and Sheep & Goats Subsectors. Within the framework of this assessment, had the direct responsibility for managing and ensuring the engagement with smaller and most vulnerable farmers/sharecroppers, especially women, and their organizations in the process of market systems analysis and identification of sectoral development opportunities; mapping existing assets and infrastructure in representative farms and communities identified through the analysis; and contributing high-level insights regarding cross-cutting issues including the institutional framework and policy constraints, gendered market analysis, cooperative governance; water, sanitation, public health, environment and other contributing factors to the effectiveness of the local market systems. 2012: UN Women, Project Final Evaluation, Socially Responsible, Women Run School Canteens-Phase II Led the final evaluation of the second phase of this project which was funded by the Government of Norway and aimed at strengthening the economic security of Palestinian women and their organizations in the West Bank through enabling them to associate and run school canteens. 2012: Swiss Development Cooperation (on behalf of a four-donor consortium: Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland), Evaluation of the Human Rights and Good Governance Programme Co-led this evaluation which focused on providing SDC and the programme donors (Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden) with an objective assessment of the HR/GG Programme Secretariat (managed jointly by the NGO Development Center and the Programme donors) with the view of generating practical and programmatic recommendations for the management of the planned next phase of the Programme. 2012: International Labour Organization and the Union of Women Savings and Credit Association, Evaluation of a Capacity Development and Economic Empowerment Grant Programme Led the evaluation of this pilot programme which was designed to build the organizational capacity of 28 women cooperatives operating in the West Bank towards enhancing economic opportunities and leadership of their members. The evaluation relied on a mixed-method approach, on which basis a preliminary schematic design and intervention logic was formulated for scaling-up the programme. . process of the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP), leading this assessment which aimed at identifying problems facing Palestinian refugees and herders in the West Bank and identifying priority needs in various sectors of analysis (food, cash, health, education, water and sanitation, and cross-cutting issues of gender, disability and protection). The assessment is being informed by a survey of a representative sample of refugee and herder households, as well as a series of focus group and community discussions. Assessment planned for completion by end of September 2010. 2010: World Food Programme (oPt) and Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the oPt, Assessment of Impact of the Expansion of “Buffer Zone” on the Agricultural Sector in the Gaza Strip Given what is known about the significance of the border area to local agricultural production and livelihoods, co￾led this assessment which aimed to gauge the impact of the expansion of the Buffer Zone on the local food security and livelihoods. 2010: World Food Programme (WFP-oPt) and Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the oPt (OCHA-oPt), Assessment of Impact of Tunnel Trade on Circumventing the Effects of the Protracted Blockade on the Gaza Strip Leading this assessment which –through a mixed method approach- aimed to explore, from a humanitarian point of view, if and to what extent has the tunnel system indeed created an adequate alternative to the crossings? The 140 assessment will be used as a key input into OCHA’s advocacy initiatives aiming at lifting the Blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip since June 2007. 2010: The Palestinian Center for Peace and Democracy (PCPD) and Kvinna Till Kvinna, Project Evaluation Led the evaluation of a women leadership building project in the West Bank. The evaluation was based on qualitative evaluation techniques and examined the project design, strategic relevance, and results. The evaluation provided detailed actionable recommendations for strengthening the achievements of the first two of implementation and improving the design of an anticipated future phase of the project. 2009: UNIFEM, Project Evaluation, Socially Responsible, Women Run School Canteens Leading the evaluation of a two-year project funded by the Government of Norway that aimed at strengthening the economic security of Palestinian women through enabling them to associate and run school canteens. 2009: World Food Program (WFP), Market Review Undertook an assessment of the staple food market in the West Bank and Gaza Strip which focused on examining the performance of markets from a Structure-Performance-Conduct perspective, covering such issues as food availability, price integration, market concentration and supply chain analysis. The assessment was primarily intended to inform WFP’s programming decisions. 2009: World Food Program (WFP), Targeting Review Leading a review of the beneficiary targeting criteria and processes under the WFP’s Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation in the West Bank. The review is intended to provide guidance for the design of activities in 2009 and the review of WFP compliancy procedures for program implementation. More specifically, the review aims to evaluate the adequacy of WFP beneficiaries with WFP beneficiary targeting criteria; to evaluate the compliance of Cooperating Partners (Ministry of Social Affairs, CHF, CRS, NEF, and Ard Al-Atfal) with WFP targeting guidelines and operational procedures; to assess the strengths and weaknesses of WFP procedures and guidelines regarding beneficiary targeting; and, to identify priority areas and recommend alternative targeting mechanisms for enhancing beneficiary targeting within WFP programs in the West Bank. 2009: ACPP, Final Evaluation of the “Emergency Action to Improve the Access to a Diversified and Quality Diet of Vulnerable Rural Palestinian Household’s Project” 2008: ACDI/VOCA, Final Evaluation of the West Bank Food Security Program Leading the final evaluation of this USAID-funded Program (US$ 5 million), which included five cooperative development and growth, agribusiness and rural household support projects. The evaluation was conducted by a team of four experts, who utilized qualitative and quantitative evaluation tools. 2008: Movemiento por de La Paz(MPDL), Project Final Evaluation Leading a final evaluation of a project funded by the Spanish Agency of International Cooperation for Development and implemented by MPDL with the purpose of promoting democracy, participation and empowerment among Palestinian youth. 2008: UNDP/PAPP and Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Mid-Term Review of the Support to Palestinian Education Program (SPEP) Led a mid-term review of SPEP’s progress against planned results. Evaluation team included five senior experts in pedagogy, education planning, ICT and civil engineering. Responsible for the design of the overall evaluation methodology and tools, team coordination, and drafting the evaluation report and concept paper for a second phase of the project. 2008: Palestinian Hydrology Group, Final Impact Evaluation Led two final evaluations of two ECHO-funded emergency water and food security projects. The evaluation focused on measuring the impact of these projects on the livelihood of the direct beneficiaries as well as on the communities in which they were implemented. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods were utilized. 2008: UNRWA, WFP, and FAO, Qualitative and Quantitative Socio-Economic Assessment of the Changes in the Food Systems in the West Bank and Gaza 141 Leading this assessment which focuses on examining the effect of, inter alia, the price increases of consumer products and staple food items, frost, drought, and closures on the food security of the refugee and non-refugees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 2008: Movemiento por de La Paz, Final Evaluation of the CBR Program in West Hebron Team leader for a final evaluation of an EC-funded Community Rehabilitation Program targeting five rural communities in the Hebron Governorate. 2008: Hilfswerk Austria, Final Evaluation of the Stakeholder Participatory Water Management at Farm Level Project in Jordan and Palestine (MEDWA) Co-leading a final evaluation of MEDWA, which is a project funded by the EC’s MEDA Program. The evaluation focused on assessing the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the project as implemented in both Jordan and Palestine. 2007: World Food Programme, Qualitative and Quantitative Socio-Economic Assessment Co-led a qualitative and quantitative survey of the factors affecting food insecurity in Gaza Strip, which aims at providing timely information on the household food security status of the target population to various development and humanitarian organizations. 2007: Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association, Organizational Assessment Led an organizational performance assessment and a governance audit of this human rights organization. The assessment was conducted upon the request of Addameer’s consortium of donors to be the main input into the strategic planning and organizational development process planned for 2008. 2007: Oxfam-GB, Final Evaluation of an ECHO-funded Food Security Project Led the evaluation of the Promoting Food Security in the oPt, a project that aimed at reducing the poverty and vulnerability of Palestinian households in Western Hebron Governorate and Gaza. The evaluation involved qualitative and quantitative evaluation tools, including a household survey of a representative sample of the beneficiaries and in-depth case studies. 2007: ACDI/VOCA, Project Baseline Survey-West Bank Food Security Program 2007: World Food Programme, Review of the Food for Work and Food for Training Programs Team Leader for a comprehensive evaluative study of the Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations of the World Food Program (WFP) emphasizing generating lessons learned and detailed recommendations for the redesign of the Food-for-Work and Food-for-Training Programs for the years 2007-2009. 2007: Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Baseline Survey Team member in a comprehensive baseline survey (qualitative and quantitative) of the agricultural sector in the Jordan River Rift Valley. Mainly responsible for establishing baseline indicators on farming households’ utilization of water resources for irrigation. 2007: Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights/Legal Aid Center (JLAC), Evaluation of the JLAC Core Program 2004-2006 Led an evaluation of the JLAC’s performance against its Strategic Plan 2004-2006. The evaluation focused on issues of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, as well as an in-depth review of the governance systems and process. 2007: Institución Académica Internacional-Chile, Institutional Self-Assessment (client: Ministry of Education and Higher Education/Tertiary Education Project), Local team member on a long-term consultancy assignment aiming to establish guidelines for institutional self￾assessment and development in planning, management and quality assurance and enhancement in Palestinian higher education. 2007: ICCO, Evaluation of Stop-the-Wall Campaign Local team member on a short-term evaluation mission (a consulting team of two experts) of the Stop-the-Wall Campaign. 142 2006: United Nations Development Programme/Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People, Project Design Co-led the design process of a community-action oriented poverty alleviation project, including the drafting of a funding proposal for AGFUND. 2006: Institute for Community Partnership, Bethlehem University, Fairtrade Readiness Assessment Led a readiness assessment of seventeen cooperatives for membership in the Fairtrade Organization. The assessment was geared towards designing an intervention program to assist these cooperatives in becoming Fairtrade Organizations. 2006: World Food Program (WFP), Qualitative Verification Assessment Led a qualitative assessment of the factors affecting food insecurity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to guide the future programming of WFP. 2006: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Market Fragmentation Study Participated in a study examining the extent of market fragmentation and its effect on food systems in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This study was intended to assist the UN organizations delivering humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people in improving the effectiveness of their intervention programs, especially in urban and remote communities. 2006: United Nations Development Programme, Program Design Participated in a study aiming at identifying the needs of 1,300 poor households being targeted by a UNDP-Islamic Development Bank (IDB) poverty alleviation/enterprise development project. 2006: Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, Baseline Survey Participated in preparing a baseline study for a large-scale drought-mitigation and food security program implemented by PARC. 2006: Birzeit University, Review of the International Studies Program Undertook a review of the International Studies Program components that were funded by the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC). The review focused on assessing the Program’s achievements against plans and its impact. The review report findings and recommendations wee used to guide the formulation of a new proposal to SDC and other donors. 2006: World Bank, Final Evaluation of the Education Action Project Conducted an evaluation of a US$ 7 million World Bank funded project which aimed at improving the Ministry of Education’s capacity in planning and public financial management. The evaluation process included numerous focus group meetings, group interviews, and semi-structured interviews. Responsible for conducting the entire evaluation as well as drafting an Implementation Completion Report on behalf of the World Bank and a detailed Final Evaluation Report, as well as facilitating a workshop with key stakeholders to discuss the evaluation findings and recommendations. 2006: ACDI/VOCA, Final Evaluation of the Agribusiness Development Program in the West Bank Team Leader for the evaluation of the ACDI/VOCA’s Agribusiness Development Program in the West Bank and Gaza. In addition to the overall responsibility for drafting the evaluation report, responsible for managing a team of three experts and field researchers who comprised the evaluation team, and for designing and facilitating several focus group discussions among other things. 2005: ACDI/VOCA, Final Evaluation of 416(b) Grants Management Program in the West Bank Team Leader for the evaluation of the USDA-funded ACDI/VOCA Program in the West Bank, which was geared towards drought mitigation and agricultural development through grants provided to eight local and international non-governmental organizations working in agriculture. This was a participatory evaluation that spanned two months and was conducted by a team of three experts. The evaluation methodology included a beneficiary survey, semi-structured interviews, and several focus group discussions. Responsible for drafting the evaluation report, reviewing and incorporating input from evaluation team members into the evaluation report, supervising the overall process and quality of the evaluation, and leading focus group discussions and conducting focus groups. 143 2005: Ministry of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, Final Evaluation of Phase III and the Transitional Phase of the Ex-Detainees Rehabilitation Program Co-led an evaluation of a multi-faceted ex-detainees rehabilitation program which aims at rehabilitating and reintegrating the Palestinian ex-detainees into the society through providing them with services through which they are able to acquire needed skills, knowledge, and financial resources to be self-supported and to contribute to the process of building and development. Specific responsibilities included: analyzing the program’s management arrangements, assessment of the project’s electronic databases, compiling focus group findings into a comprehensive Focus Groups Report, supervising the team of field researchers who were conducting the beneficiaries survey, and contributing to the drafting of the evaluation report. 2005: Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, Development of Strategic Plan for the Savings and Credit Program Co-Led a three-week consultancy mission with an international micro-finance expert to develop the strategic plan for the network of women Savings and Credit Associations. 2005: World Vision International, Design of an Agricultural Development Program in the Gaza Strip for an AustAid (AMENCA) Grant Contributed to the design and development of a one million dollars agricultural development project in the Gaza Strip. Provided technical advice on the project design and proposal writing process, designed questionnaire for gathering baseline data, and drafted the final proposal in close collaboration with the lead consultant. 2005: World Vision International, Community Needs Assessment (ADP-Ramallah) Led an assessment of the physical infrastructure and community services needs in two rural communities in Ramallah Governorate, using several participatory needs assessments tools. 2004: ACDI/VOCA, Mid-Term Evaluation of 416(b) Grants Management Program in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Member of a four-person evaluation team, with the responsibility of assessing the contractual arrangements of the Grants, reviewing the Program’s participatory techniques in terms of project planning and implementation, and analyzing the cost effectiveness of particular Program outputs. 2004: ACDI/VOCA, Update of Baseline Survey and Monitoring of the Drought Mitigation Program Responsible for updating the Program’s Baseline Survey Report through a combined literature review and new field data [from new project beneficiaries and additional target areas] analysis. This consultancy also included participating in Program Monitoring Mission, which produced a concise Monitoring Report and an update of the Indicative Program Performance Tables. 2004: Arab Network for Sustainable Agriculture, Program Performance Evaluation Conducted an evaluation of the performance of a two-year operational plan of this Pan-Arab network of agricultural non-governmental organizations. The evaluation of the networks performance followed a tailored evaluation framework for lobbying and advocacy networks, which was designed to provide the network members with an objective assessment of the network’s performance over the preceding two years and to inform any future plans through offering a number of lessons learned. 2004: Care International: Socio-Economic Impact Study of Water Situation on the Livelihood of Four Rural Communities in Jenin Governorate 144 Lead Economist in a four person team undertaking a study to evaluate the extent of socio-economic impact water shortages have on the livelihood of four communities in rural Jenin. This study was the basis on which Care International launched a global fund-raising mission aimed at addressing problems highlighted in the study. Organizational Development, Capacity Building and Training 2015: Applied Research Institute of Jeruslame (ARIJ), Training on Policy Analysis Designed and facilitated a three-day training workshop for the benefit of ARIJ staff and staff of partner governmental organisations on policy research and analysis. The training focused on assessing environmental policies using the Integrated Environmental Assessment Framework. 2013: International Labour Organisation (ILO), Business Development Advisor to the Cooperative Extension Workers at the Ministry of Labour Commissioned to build the capacity of 11 cooperative extension workers in the West Bank in the area of preparing cooperative feasibility studies and business plans. The capacity building approach involved training, coaching and accompaniment over a period of two months, culminating in 11 high-quality feasibility assessments and 3-year business plans. 2012: International Labour Organisation (ILO), Technical Assistance and Strategic Planning Facilitation for the benefit of the Gender Unit at the Ministry of Labour Undertook an assessment of the capacity of the Gender Unit and assisted the Unit in formulating an action plan for the years 2012-2014. 2012: International Labour Organisation (ILO), Coaching Cooperative Extension Workers’ at the Ministry of Labour Co-led this consultancy which aimed at building the capacity of cooperative extension agents at the Ministry of Labour on assessing the performance of Palestinian cooperatives, with a particular emphasis on formulating intervention plans to help these cooperatives improve their business oprations. 2011: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Preparation of a Ready-to-Use Training Package on Mainstreaming Gender and Poverty Analysis in the Lifecycle of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects Commissioned to produce a set of ready-to-use training materials which conform to good instructional design standards. The training package aims to enable IFAD-supported staff to undertake gender analysis and integrate gender issues in the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of agricultural and rural development projects. 2010: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Design of a Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for the Project Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation System for the Project: “Improved Livelihoods of Small Farmers in Iraq through Integrated Pest Management and Organic Fertilization” Member of a two-expert team responsible for revising the project design and developing an M&E system for the project. Tasks included facilitating a five-day workshop with the project team from Iraq, ICARDA, and IFAD (held in Amman) which culminated in revised logframe and budget, and a preliminary design of M&E data collection tools; and coaching through correspondence and follow-up workshops. 145 2010: World Food Programme (Rome), Preparation of a Comprehensive Training Package on Qualitative Assessment Approaches for Food Security and Poverty Analysis Based on the materials already available in WFP and OMXF and most up-to-date knowledge from external sources related to qualitative analysis methodologies, commissioned to produce a set of ready-to-use training materials which conform to good instructional design standards. The training package aims to enable WFP to upgrade the skills of WFP and partner field-based assessors worldwide on methods for conducting good qualitative analysis and for combining it with quantitative analysis. 2009 and 2010: The German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Organizational Development Consultancy for the Benefit of the Ministries of Labor and Interior Within the framework of GTZ Policy Advice and Reform Fund to the Palestinian Authority, commissioned to undertake an organizational development exercise that involves a design of a regulatory, organizational and operational framework for enabling the Directorate General of Cooperatives at the Ministry of Labor and the General Directorate of Non-Governmental Organizations to carry out their functions of organizing and overseeing the cooperative and NGO sectors in Palestine. This includes a process mapping and re-engineering (including the preparation of an operations manual), conducting a capacity assessment of staff and physical resources, and conducting staff training on developed manual. 2009: The NGO Development Center (NDC), Technical Assistance for NGOs on the Adoption of the Palestinian NGOs’ Code of Conduct Leading a team of six senior experts (law, capacity building, participatory planning, communication, lobbying and advocacy, and financial management) in providing long-term technical assistance to 15 NGOs in the southern and middle West Bank on the basis of pre-prepared organizational development plans. TA includes, inter alia, training provision, administrative and financial systems development, strategic planning, organizational restructuring and formulating job descriptions and staff appraisal systems. 2009: ACDI/VOCA and The Ministry of Labour, Leading the Organization of the “Reality and Prospects of the Palestinian Cooperative Movement Conference” In close collaboration with the General Directorate for Cooperatives in the Ministry of Labour, and with funding from ACDI/VOCA, led the process of organizing this conference. Responsibilities included technical oversight of the preparation of four working papers that were presented in the conference, logistical preparations and arrangements, and preparing the conference proceedings report. 2009: Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Organizational Capacity Assessment and Development Planning for the Women Savings and Credit Associations and the Savings and Credit Union Co-led this assessment which involved carrying out a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the services, systems, procedures, financial situation and membership standing of the 12 apex SCAs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the purpose of formulating a program of actionable recommendations to bridge capacity gaps within the SCAs and improve the financial performance and sustainability thereof. The assessment also included an in depth organizational review of the Savings and Credit Union. 2008: CordAid, Organizational Assessment and Strategic Planning for Partner Organizations in Palestine Commissioned by CordAid (Dutch NGO) to assist PYALARA in undertaking and organizational assessment with the view of formulating a five-year strategic plan that focuses on enhancing responsiveness to youth’s needs, improving services and programs, and paving the way for sustainability. 2008: International Labor Organization (ILO), Institutional Assessment of Palestinian Cooperatives 146 Member of a three-member team of consultants tasked with assessing the institutional and legal environment surrounding the work of Palestinian cooperatives in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The assessment was intended to serve as an input into formulating intervention policies and programs by ILO, UNDP and the Ministry of Labor. 2005: World Vision International, Capacity Needs Assessment of Thirty Community Based Organizations in Rural Bethlehem Local Government Policy Specialist in a three person team conducting an assessment of the capacity building and institutional development needs of thirty local community bodies. 2005: Municipality of Jericho, Organizational Development and Restructuring Conducted a rapid diagnosis of the organization structure, wage bill, and staffing levels of the Municipality of Jericho and proposed a plan of action towards restructuring and staff retrenchment. Also, provided advice and recommendation on detailed organizational development work that is needed for implementing a downsizing/retrenchment scheme. 2005: Birzeit University Center for Continuing Education, Design and Delivery of Training in the Field of Strategic Communication Designed a forty-hour training module on strategic communication. Delivered a pilot training course to a group of executive secretaries from Birzeit University. 2004: Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling, Institutional Performance and Capacity Assessment, and Strategic Planning Consultancy Public Sector Reform and Financial Management 2005 - 2006: Ministry of Planning, Public Administration and Civil Service Reform Program, Public sector planning and financial management Planning Expert on a long-term mission tasked with reviewing public sector planning and reform initiatives and public sector financial management and providing recommendations to form the basis for the introduction of a government-wide Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Responsible for reviewing planning and financial management and accountability arrangements and making proposals for institutional reforms, including the definition of skills required to support planning and financial management. Also responsible for providing input into the design and implementation of three-year intervention program in support of integration of planning and budgeting (IPB) within the PA. Achievements: Co-authored a Diagnostic Report of the planning and public financial management functions in the Ministries of Health and Agriculture, drafted a policy briefing note and later a detailed proposal for a Cabinet Decision for introducing (IPB) (adopted in November 2005); facilitated the design of a one-year work plan for strengthening the planning and budgeting capacity in the Ministries of Health and Agriculture; and provided technical inputs into the drafting of a detailed overall approach for introducing an MTEF in Palestine. 2006 - 2007: Birzeit University, Good Governance Monitoring Lead a team of multidisciplinary experts in the design of a good governance monitoring system to assess the performance of the three branches of government. The first monitoring report was published in November 2006. While a second report was being prepared for publication, a political crisis in June 2007 put the whole initiative on hold. 147 United Nations Development Programme November 2001 –March 2005 Program Management Officer Responsible for managing programs and projects in the area of local rural development. Management portfolio included projects funded by USAID, European Commission, Japan, Spanish Cooperation, Development Cooperation Ireland, Australian Aid, and Italian Cooperation. • Managed capital assistance, emergency job creation, local governance, rural and agricultural development, and institutional strengthening programs (value of projects portfolio managed: US$ 35 million). • Formulated new programs and mobilized substantive financial resources (US$ 8 million in additional funding); • Conducted output / results monitoring and put in place a PM&E and Reporting system for the Local Rural Development Program (LRDP); • Organized and facilitated workshops for local/international stakeholders and beneficiaries; • Led the design of the capacity building and institutional strengthening component of the Local Rural Development Program (LRDP), which principally focused on strengthening the capacity and institutionalization of Joint Service Councils (later used by MDLF as an entry point for amalgamation of local authorities); • Ensured efficient financial and administrative/operational management of projects portfolio (annual budget ~ US$ 35 million); • Provided technical oversight and contributed to the preparation of programs’ annual work plans, and progress reports; and, • Designed profiles for audit missions and ensured MOSS standards program compliance. United Nations Relief and Works Agency July 2000-June 2001 Administrative Officer/Human Rights Project • Responsible for financial, administrative and logistics management of project; • Advised Project Coordinator on operational and administrative issues, and acted as the Officer-in-Charge in the absence of the Project Coordinator; • Organized training workshops for UNRWA school teachers and counselors; • Prepared progress reports and annual work plans for the project; • Led the recruitment process for project consultants and personnel; • Designed a dissemination and public awareness strategy for project outputs, including making logistical arrangements for delivery of project outputs to target schools. Global Management Consulting Group January 2001-June 2001 Junior Business Consultant • Responsible for the Studies and Market Research Unit: coordinated sub-contractor (outside consultants) activities, evaluated sub-contractor performance, conduct extensive research on a wide-range topics, wrote technical proposals and reports. • Drafted the Wadi Gaza Development Project proposal for the benefit of UNDP/PAPP, which received favourable recognition and funding from USAID (US$ 3.5 Million). Eastern Michigan University September 1998-April 2000 Undergraduate Students Advisor 148 • Advised College of Business undergraduate students in their areas of academic concentration, created and compiled the College of Business Student Handbook, helped students with registration process, reviewed academic progress, processed applications to the College of Business, worked on the Self Evaluation Report for the American Assembly Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) reaccredidation and verified compliance with the University and the AACSB guidelines. Padnos Iron & Metal Company February 1998-August 1998 Assistant To Quality Manager • Assisted Quality Manager in implementing a Q-S9001 project and obtaining certification, led internal quality audits, prepared audit reports, assisted in improving APQP in two machines, trained employees on the use of the SPC. Padnos Iron & Metal Company September 1997–February 1998 Assistant To Warehouse Manager, Intern • Monitored and controlled inventory levels through cycle counting and back-flushing, generated inventory purchase orders, conducted routine shipping and receiving activities, assisted in the implementation of a bar￾code system within the warehouse. Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Specialist Ruba Abdelrahman Al-Adham  Nationality: Jordanian (hold Palestinian ID) CAREER OBJECTIVE To succeed in an environment of growth and excellence, where I can utilize my combined management and technical skills efficiently. I am keen to build an innovative career that contributes to organizational growth through sheer commitment, dedication and eagerness to enrich my knowledge. SUMMARY A professional with 11 years of experience in the fields of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and reporting, engineering research and quality assurance. Have knowledge and experience in managing M&E function of USAID and DFID funded projects focusing on community development, infrastructure, good governance, humanitarian assistance, market systems, women empowerment and gender mainstreaming. Solid experience in developing and implementing assessments and evaluations in addition to managing external evaluators. Proven team player with strong communication and problem solving skills. Have diversified analytical skills supported by engineering background, research and quality assurance work experience. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Communications (MERC) Specialist USAID WBG Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Project (PMEP) January 2018 to present QED Group LLC. Ramallah- Palestine Main responsibilities: • Develop M&E plans, define project indicators, and collect and review monitoring data. 149 • Contribute to performance and impact evaluations through questionnaire development. Key informant in￾depth interviewing, managing survey data collection, reviewing data, preparing datasets, analyzing quantitative or qualitative data, and report writing. • Interpret outcomes of implementation through data or other evidenced-based sources and provide program recommendations as needed. • Provide support to the USAID’s Geographic Management Information System. • Assist in the management of field monitoring, evaluation design, empirical and statistical analysis, environmental compliance, and management of information systems. • Provide quality assurance/quality control for local subcontractors. • Collect and verify data on technical implementation, coordinate with both technical and operation staff and contribute to overall project reporting requirements as per contractual agreements including quarterly and weekly reports, evaluation and case studies, success stories, etc. •Work closely with project leadership and manage directly project efforts to effectively design and implement dissemination strategies and activities to communicate analytical products developed under the project as part of learning and/or strategic communications and public outreach agenda. • Take the lead in supporting learning agendas, collaboration, learning and adapting, and knowledge management activities; all aimed at facilitating effective collaboration and promote learning and sharing among stakeholders. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Manager Arab Women Enterprise Fund (AWEF) - DFID- funded Program (Regional Program in Palestine, Jordan and Egypt). February- December 2017 Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) Ramallah- Palestine Main responsibilities: • Lead for AWEF in country on the development of a detailed and robust MEL system in collaboration with Market Share Associates (MSA), including defining and operationalizing the results framework (logical framework) for market strategies and other supporting tools which meet DFID’s standards and are fit for the purpose this program focusing on the inclusion of women. • Lead on monitoring, evaluation and learning activities for the AWEF in collaboration with the country team and MSA and collaborate with other AWEF MEL Managers on MEL activities in their countries and overall Log-frame progress and planning. • Provide support to Program Partners on the construction and commissioning of the M&E and Results Chain framework, and ensure baseline, midline and end-line data is collected taking ownership of the dataset for AWEF, and routinely monitoring against it; • Monitor the implementation of all activities on an on-going basis through site visits, receiving reports from implementing partners and obtaining feedback from the recipients of assistance • Uphold high standards of monitoring and evaluation principles and ensure adherence to DFID and Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) principles • Contribute to incorporation of Value for Money indicators into MEL systems which balance Equity and Effectiveness with Efficiency and Economy dimensions, ensuring that AWEF monitors, demonstrates and learns from VfM; • Provide timely and accurate inputs into the Inception Report, Operations Manual and quarterly and annual reports. • Learning Hub: Ensure that program data is reliably disaggregated (according to agreed criteria) and captured, stored safely and securely (using adapted standard database software) and robustly analyzed • Set database of studies (baseline studies) and plan dissemination activities including quarterly report, information platforms, websites and publications. Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting Manager Local Government and Infrastructure Program (LGI) - USAID-Funded Project ($104.7 million) April 2016- January 2017 150 Global Communities West Bank & Gaza￾Formerly CHF Al-Bireh-Palestine Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting Officer Local Government and Infrastructure Program (LGI) - USAID-Funded Project ($104.7 million) September 2013- March 2016 Global Communities West Bank & Gaza￾Formerly CHF Al-Bireh-Palestine Main responsibilities: • Prepare and update program performance management plan and key performance indicators related to program goals and objectives. • Maintain and update the USAID Geo-MIS system and TraiNet, including data quality control and supporting documents. • Maintain and oversee quality control of the LGI internal database. Support program staff in utilizing the internal database and ensuring processes is clear and as streamlined as possible. • Write biweekly, quarterly and annual reports submitted to the donor. • Gather specific data as requested by the LGI management team that may relate to more in-depth analysis or donor inquiries. • Prepare, review and update M&E and evaluation tools, forms, reporting system and procedures. • Collection and analysis of data from LGI conducted internal program assessments, surveys and evaluations. • Design and conduct qualitative and quantitative evaluations (surveys, focus group discussion and in-depth interviews) for infrastructure, governance, gender and humanitarian assistance interventions in addition to conducting case studies and regular reviews of program interventions. • Manage the external evaluation firm conducting citizen perception survey of LGI program. • Oversee the M&E function of humanitarian assistance interventions in Gaza, namely Cash for Work program. In addition, supervise M&E officer and assistants in a Gaza to assume their roles effectively. • Assist communications team in preparing success stories highlighting program achievements. Researcher Capacity Building and Institutional Reform for Integrated Water /Wastewater Management in Rural Areas of West Bank Project- funded by Austrian Development Cooperation August 2010- April 2013 Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) Ramallah-Palestine Main responsibilities: • Assist research work in the field of sanitary services. • Monitor and report on the performance of small scale wastewater treatment plants constructed in rural areas of West Bank • Assist in building PWA baseline for sanitary services in West Bank. • Survey the environmental state of art of olive mills in West Bank and propose feasible alternatives for best management of olive mill wastewater. Project coordinator- Part Time Women's Leadership for Greater Economic Participation Program: focusing on improving the quality of life of Palestinian women in southern Hebron villages. August 2009- January 2010 CEDPA "Center for Development and Population Activities”, Washington DC- USA Main responsibilities: • Coordinate project activities with stakeholders. • Assist in organizing awareness/ training workshops for project beneficiaries. • Write progress reports and prepare presentations highlighting project achievements. 151 Quality Assurance Inspector July 2007 - July 2009 Jerusalem Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd Al-Bireh – Palestine Main responsibilities: • Monitor the quality of production and line clearance functions according to GMP regulations. • Internal GMP, ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2004 audit. • Conduct cross–functional investigations for products, processes, and system failures. • Prepare Annual Product Review (APR) to assure that processes are operating under state of control, monitor deviations and propose corrective, preventive or development actions • Non-conforming materials/product control and documentation • Continuous review and assessment of quality manual: prepare and review Quality Procedures (QP) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that comply with European GMP requirements. CONFRENCES AND PUBLICATIONS • Empowerment- forward Poverty Measurement: Real- Time Learning from the Arab Women’s Enterprise Fund’s Disadvantaged Assessment, Laura Kim; Market Share Associates, Erin Markel; Market Share Associates and Ruba Aladham; Arab Women’s Enterprise Fund. To be presented in the SEEP Network Annual Conference, October 2017. • Palestinian-Dutch academic cooperation program on water (PADUCO) second conference, The Hague, November 28, 2015 (speaker and participant). • Palestinian Dutch Cooperation Conference and Bilateral Forum, The Hague, November 29, 2015 (participant). • Global Communities' International Conference entitled "Raising the Bar on M&E", Silver Spring, Maryland-USA, August 18-20, 2015. Presentation title “Municipal Capacity Index for Performance Monitoring". • OLITREVA International Conference on Olive Mills Waste. Speaker and poster presenter; paper title "Removal of Polyphones from Olive Mills Wastewater using Activated Olive Stones." Bethlehem-Palestine November 19-20, 2014. • The Second International Conference on Olives in Palestine. Speaker and participant; paper title: "Removal of Polyphones from Olive Mills Wastewater using Activated Olive Stones." Palestine Technical University, Tulkarm-Palestine November 25-26, 2013. • The first International Civil Engineering Conference in Palestine. Speaker and participant; paper title: "Removal of Polyphones from Olive Mills Wastewater using Activated Olive Stones." Ramallah- Palestine, October 24- 25, 2013. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Master of Science in Water and Environmental Engineering 2010 –2012 An-Najah National University Nablus, Palestine Full scholarship granted by Palestinian Water Authority and funded by Austrian Development Cooperation. Thesis title: Removal of polyphenols from olive mill wastewater using activated olive stones GPA: 3.81 (Excellence) Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering 2002 - 2007 University of Jordan Amman, Jordan GPA: 3.65 (Excellence) 152 General High School Certificate 2000-2002 Kamal Junblat High School, Nablus, Palestine Average: 97.2% PROPFESSIONAL TRAINING •Women’s Economic Empowerment in Market Systems Development – Key principles and definitions, Market Share Associates, Ramallah- Palestine. January 2017. • Geo-MIS Training, USAID- West Bank & Gaza Mission Office, Jerusalem-Palestine, September 2015. • Data Quality Assessment (DQA) refresher training, USAID West Bank & Gaza, Ramallah-Palestine, July 2015. • Geo-MIS Training, USAID West Bank & Gaza, Ramallah- Palestine, October 2013. • Operation of effluent infiltration basins, Middle East Desalination Research Center (MEDREC), Tel-Aviv, June 29 –July 7, 2013. • Use of software packages for the design of activated sludge systems [ASS], Palestinian Water Authority/GIZ, Ramallah-Palestine, April 2012. • Reforming environmental education in Palestine, EU-TEMPUS project, University of Loughborough-UK, May 2011. • Engineering project management in water and sanitation systems, Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), Ramallah-Palestine, December 2010. • "Women's Leadership for Greater Economic Participation", Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA). Round I: Amman- Jordan, April, 2009, Round II: Washington DC -USA, December 2009. • Project Management Certificate, Birzeit University Center for Continuous Education, Ramallah- Palestine, July, 2008 (40 credit hours). • MS–Project Certificate, AMIDEAST, Ramallah-Palestine, February 2008 (20 credit hours). • Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliance training course, Ministry of Health, Ramallah-Palestine, June 2008, (40 credit hours). LA NG U AG ES Arabic: Native English: Excellent (speaking and writing), (iBT TOEFL score=114) COMPUTER SKILLS Microsoft Office, SPSS, PSPP, ArcGIS, Geo-MIS, MS-Project, AutoCAD, Matlab, HEC-HMS, MODFLOW, Aqua Designer, HYSYS, ESOLVE, Polymath, C++. Performance Evaluation: Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness (Compete) Project 1